Thanks!!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Engeldorf, Roseann  
Sent:	Friday, August 24, 2001 4:22 PM
To:	Cash, Michelle
Subject:	FW: Section 145

FYI -  See attached.  

Rose  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Karathanos, Gina  
Sent:	Friday, August 24, 2001 4:15 PM
To:	Engeldorf, Roseann
Subject:	Section 145

Rose, I included links to case law at bottom if you want them.

8 Del. C. ? 145 
DELAWARE CODE ANNOTATED 
Copyright ? 1975-2001 by The State of Delaware 
All rights reserved. 
*** ANNOTATIONS CURRENT THROUGH JUNE 2001 *** 
*** CURRENT THROUGH 2000 REGULAR SESSION *** 
TITLE 8. CORPORATIONS 
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL CORPORATION LAW 
SUBCHAPTER IV. DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS 

 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION  </research/search/adf?_m=81d49c05eecba5d2c9c640b2affdf524&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=a8ab54a933c6a3f1764cddf431861e83>
8 Del. C. ? 145 (2001) 
? 145. Indemnification of officers, directors, employees and agents; insurance 


(a) A corporation shall have power to indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative (other than an action by or in the right of the corporation) by reason of the fact that the person is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, against expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by the person in connection with such action, suit or proceeding if the person acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe the person's conduct was unlawful. The termination of any action, suit or proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent, shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in good faith and in a manner which the person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had reasonable cause to believe that the person's conduct was unlawful. 

(b) A corporation shall have power to indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action or suit by or in the right of the corporation to procure a judgment in its favor by reason of the fact that the person is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise against expenses (including attorneys' fees) actually and reasonably incurred by the person in connection with the defense or settlement of such action or suit if the person acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation and except that no indemnification shall be made in respect of any claim, issue or matter as to which such person shall have been adjudged to be liable to the corporation unless and only to the extent that the Court of Chancery or the court in which such action or suit was brought shall determine upon application that, despite the adjudication of liability but in view of all the circumstances of the case, such person is fairly and reasonably entitled to indemnity for such expenses which the Court of Chancery or such other court shall deem proper. 

(c) To the extent that a present or former director or officer of a corporation has been successful on the merits or otherwise in defense of any action, suit or proceeding referred to in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, or in defense of any claim, issue or matter therein, such person shall be indemnified against expenses (including attorneys' fees) actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection therewith. 

(d) Any indemnification under subsections (a) and (b) of this section (unless ordered by a court) shall be made by the corporation only as authorized in the specific case upon a determination that indemnification of the present or former director, officer, employee or agent is proper in the circumstances because the person has met the applicable standard of conduct set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section. Such determination shall be made, with respect to a person who is a director or officer at the time of such determination, (1) by a majority vote of the directors who are not parties to such action, suit or proceeding, even though less than a quorum, or (2) by a committee of such directors designated by majority vote of such directors, even though less than a quorum, or (3) if there are no such directors, or if such directors so direct, by independent legal counsel in a written opinion, or (4) by the stockholders. 

(e) Expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred by an officer or director in defending any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action, suit or proceeding may be paid by the corporation in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit or proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of such director or officer to repay such amount if it shall ultimately be determined that such person is not entitled to be indemnified by the corporation as authorized in this section. Such expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred by former directors and officers or other employees and agents may be so paid upon such terms and conditions, if any, as the corporation deems appropriate. 

(f) The indemnification and advancement of expenses provided by, or granted pursuant to, the other subsections of this section shall not be deemed exclusive of any other rights to which those seeking indemnification or advancement of expenses may be entitled under any bylaw, agreement, vote of stockholders or disinterested directors or otherwise, both as to action in such person's official capacity and as to action in another capacity while holding such office. 

(g) A corporation shall have power to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any person who is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise against any liability asserted against such person and incurred by such person in any such capacity, or arising out of such person's status as such, whether or not the corporation would have the power to indemnify such person against such liability under this section. 

(h) For purposes of this section, references to "the corporation" shall include, in addition to the resulting corporation, any constituent corporation (including any constituent of a constituent) absorbed in a consolidation or merger which, if its separate existence had continued, would have had power and authority to indemnify its directors, officers, and employees or agents, so that any person who is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of such constituent corporation, or is or was serving at the request of such constituent corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, shall stand in the same position under this section with respect to the resulting or surviving corporation as such person would have with respect to such constituent corporation if its separate existence had continued. 

(i) For purposes of this section, references to "other enterprises" shall include employee benefit plans; references to "fines" shall include any excise taxes assessed on a person with respect to any employee benefit plan; and references to "serving at the request of the corporation" shall include any service as a director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation which imposes duties on, or involves services by, such director, officer, employee or agent with respect to an employee benefit plan, its participants or beneficiaries; and a person who acted in good faith and in a manner such person reasonably believed to be in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of an employee benefit plan shall be deemed to have acted in a manner "not opposed to the best interests of the corporation" as referred to in this section. 

(j) The indemnification and advancement of expenses provided by, or granted pursuant to, this section shall, unless otherwise provided when authorized or ratified, continue as to a person who has ceased to be a director, officer, employee or agent and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors and administrators of such a person. 

(k) The Court of Chancery is hereby vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all actions for advancement of expenses or indemnification brought under this section or under any bylaw, agreement, vote of stockholders or disinterested directors, or otherwise. The Court of Chancery may summarily determine a corporation's obligation to advance expenses (including attorneys' fees). 

HISTORY: 8 Del. C. 1953, ? 145; 56 Del. Laws, c. 50; 56 Del. Laws, c. 186, ? 6; 57 Del. Laws, c. 421, ? 2; 59 Del. Laws, c. 437, ? 7; 63 Del. Laws, c. 25, ? 1; 64 Del. Laws, c. 112, ? 7; 65 Del. Laws, c. 289, ?? 3-6; 67 Del. Laws, c. 376, ? 3; 69 Del. Laws, c. 261, ?? 1, 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, ? 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 120, ?? 3-11. 

NOTES: 
REVISOR'S NOTE. --Section 30 of 67 Del. Laws, c. 376, provides: "This act shall become effective on July 1, 1990." Chapter 376 was signed by the Governor on July 17, 1990. 
Section 3 of 69 Del. Laws, c. 261, provides: "This act shall become effective July 1, 1994, and shall not apply to suits pending as of July 1, 1994." 
Section 32 of 71 Del. Laws, c. 120, provides: "This act shall be effective on July 1, 1997, except that ? 5 of this act shall become effective with respect to indemnification of expenses (including attorneys' fees) for acts or omissions occurring on or after July 1, 1997." 

EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --67 Del. Laws, c. 376, in (e), inserted "(including attorneys' fees)" in the first and second sentences and substituted "any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative" for "a civil or criminal" in the first sentence. 
69 Del. Laws, c. 261, effective July 1, 1994, rewrote the second sentence in (d); and added (k). 
71 Del. Laws, c. 120, neutralized gender-specific language in (c), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i); in (c), substituted "present or former director or officer" for "director, officer, employee or agent"; in (d), inserted "present or former" in the first sentence and rewrote the second sentence; and, in the second sentence in (e), inserted "former directors and officers or" and substituted "corporation" for "board of directors." 

PURPOSE OF INDEMNIFICATION STATUTES. --Indemnification statutes were enacted in this State, and elsewhere, to induce capable and responsible businessmen to accept positions in corporate management. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 264 A.2d 358 (1970). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b264%20A.2d%20358%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=9b87026358b9ae7fd1b510e141679cb9> 

PURPOSE OF SECTION. --This section is a new statute, enacted to clarify its predecessor, and to give vindicated directors and others involved in corporate affairs a judicially enforceable right to indemnification. Galdi v. Berg, 359 F. Supp. 698 (D. Del. 1973). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b359%20F.%20Supp.%20698%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=77b3127fe477a9364de9fe4041424054> 
The purpose of this section is not to encourage litigation or to deter the losing party in the underlying action from prescribed categories of conduct; rather, its purpose is to encourage capable persons to serve as officers, directors, employees or agents of Delaware corporations, by assuring that their reasonable legal expenses will be paid. Mayer v. Executive Telecard, Ltd., Del. Ch., 705 A.2d 220 (1997). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b705%20A.2d%20220%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=7b14040ddc0f963631fcf7ef69d594bb> 

WHO IS ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION. --Chairman of the board and president of wholly owned subsidiary of parent corporation entitled to benefit of this section. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=5&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=fd4897a2a16cd65d86bfe0634d4ea742> 
Where the president and chairman of the board of a subsidiary corporation participated in the fraudulent stock repurchase plan, shared the inside information, and was prosecuted because of his employment or agency relationship, he is entitled to indemnification. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=34e79d1dfb66c10d942cab660e6ae7d5> 
Subsection (a) of this section does not oblige Delaware corporations to indemnify those who serve other enterprises at their request; if a corporation wishes not to extend indemnification rights to those who serve elsewhere at its request, it can say so in its bylaws, or it can say nothing at all, thereby achieving the same result. VonFeldt v. Stifel Fin. Corp., Del. Supr., 714 A.2d 79 (1998). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=7&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b714%20A.2d%2079%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=476d5eff3f56300fbd15cdd64824aec5> 
The director of a subsidiary corporation who was successful in defending a derivative action against the subsidiary could not recover attorney fees in an indemnification suit against the parent corporation which was not a successor in interest to the subsidiary. Chamison v. Healthtrust, Inc., Del. Ch., 735 A.2d 912 (1999), </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=8&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b735%20A.2d%20912%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=fea49d11f5efe74e0094fe56a61c4617> aff'd, Del. Supr., 748 A.2d 407 (2000). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=9&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b748%20A.2d%20407%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=ce778b0e7640ee0cc9e93cf3a9d30f21> 

MUST BE A COVERED PROCEEDING. --First requirement for indemnification under this section is that the expenses in question be incurred in connection with a covered proceeding as described in subsection (a) or (b) of this section. Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., Del. Ch., 652 A.2d 578 (1994). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=10&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b652%20A.2d%20578%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=21651be108ba0efab1c14bdc2bffbf47> 

JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF INDEMNITEE'S CORPORATE POSITION NOT REQUIRED. --Subsections (a) and (b) of this section do not require a prior judicial determination of the validity of the indemnitee's position as to the proceeding for which indemnification is sought. Green v. Westcap Corp., Del. Super. Ct., 492 A.2d 260 (1985). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=11&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b492%20A.2d%20260%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=4bfcdbce4415f9af8f49feac69ec81b0> 

PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY. --Where a 100 percent stockholder elects a director to the board of a subsidiary, that director thereafter serves the subsidiary "at the request of" the stockholder, within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section. VonFeldt v. Stifel Fin. Corp., Del. Supr., 714 A.2d 79 (1998). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=12&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b714%20A.2d%2079%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=18630983e072c4fdaeb97210c3513a35> 

LANGUAGE "IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B)," REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION (C), incorporates those portions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section which define the type of action, suit or proceeding but does not incorporate the subsequent qualifications required for indemnification. Green v. Westcap Corp., Del. Super. Ct., 492 A.2d 260 (1985). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=13&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b492%20A.2d%20260%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=071b63bd6f8dd54944b58a87514197a0> 

SUBSECTION (C) IS MANDATORY. --Subsection (c) is a mandatory provision that applies to all Delaware corporations and grants an absolute right of indemnification. Witco Corp. v. Beekhuis, 38 F.3d 682 (3d Cir. 1994). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=14&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b38%20F.3d%20682%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=412a2c0298fb960f188c1eac1b9a79b3> 

INDEMNITY NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE STANDING AS DEFENDANTS IN MAIN ACTION. --By the language of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, indemnity is not limited to only those who stand as defendants in the main action. Hibbert v. Hollywood Park, Inc., Del. Supr., 457 A.2d 339 (1983). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=15&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b457%20A.2d%20339%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=0b52567e73502253ff84a8bace5801cd> 

CLAIMANT ASSUMES RISK OF NOT BEING INDEMNIFIED. --Where indemnification is sought, the claimant will have usually assumed the risk of not being indemnified. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=16&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=f6ee2f84d32c1ee02e0aca5f4db3a886> 

CORPORATION CAN ALSO GRANT INDEMNIFICATION RIGHTS BEYOND THOSE PROVIDED BY STATUTE. Hibbert v. Hollywood Park, Inc., Del. Supr., 457 A.2d 339 (1983). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=17&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b457%20A.2d%20339%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=92fc3731ca399f11233b123a976ace71> 
Under subsection (c), to the extent a claimant has not been successful "on the merits or otherwise," the claimant may still be entitled to indemnification of expense incurred in a covered proceeding, if a disinterested quorum of the board, or legal counsel at the request of the board, or the shareholders, specifically determines: (1) if the indemnification is sought in respect to a civil matter; (2) that the proceeding was a covered proceeding; and (3) that the claimant acted in good faith and in a manner the claimant reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interest of the corporation. Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., Del. Ch., 652 A.2d 578 (1994). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=18&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b652%20A.2d%20578%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=58fb256be451214e02e026a9ba128209> 

AUTHORITY MANDATED BY BYLAWS. --While permissive authority to indemnify its directors, officers, etc., may be exercised by a corporation's board of directors on a case-by-case basis, most corporations and virtually all public corporations have by bylaw exercised the authority recognized by this section so as to mandate the extension of indemnification rights in circumstances in which indemnification would be permissible under this section. Advanced Mining Sys. v. Fricke, Del. Ch., 623 A.2d 82 (1992). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=19&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b623%20A.2d%2082%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=8b889d0987e225a464119d1116e3956d> 

THIS SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE COMPLETE SUCCESS but provides for indemnification to the extent of success "in defense of any claim, issue or matter" in an action. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=20&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=5069ecf3173b671060118beb8de89488> 

A MANDATE TO INDEMNIFY DOES NOT INCLUDE AN OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE EXPENSES PRIOR TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER INDEMNIFICATION IS PERMITTED OR REQUIRED. Advanced Mining Sys. v. Fricke, Del. Ch., 623 A.2d 82 (1992). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=21&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b623%20A.2d%2082%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=13fa25192df7c06e083ecf41908b7c15> 

ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES. --Subsection (e) leaves to the business judgment of the board the task of determining whether the undertaking proffered in all of the circumstances is sufficient to protect the corporation's interest in repayment and whether, ultimately, advancement of expenses would on balance be likely to promote the corporation's interests. Advanced Mining Sys. v. Fricke, Del. Ch., 623 A.2d 82 (1992). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=22&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b623%20A.2d%2082%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=c66eb20418afe85d4363d2b6f1e0e45b> 
This section does not afford a director a right to advancement of his litigation expenses. VonFeldt v. Stifel Fin. Corp., Del. Supr., 714 A.2d 79 (1998). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=23&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b714%20A.2d%2079%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=1531afbc1e85edb0b7da46c1deb446e9> 
The Business Trust Act does not prohibit a business trust from advancing litigation expenses to trustees. Nakahara v. NS 1991 Am. Trust, Del. Ch. 770, 739 A.2d 770 (1998). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=24&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b739%20A.2d%20770%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=14fc3de4c2f74e029119283c3b6b06b5> 

SUBSECTION (B) IS NOT GRANT OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. --Subsection (b) of this section does not necessarily preclude personal liability of directors because it is not a grant of absolute immunity. Bergstein v. Texas Int'l Co., Del. Ch., 453 A.2d 467 (1982). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=25&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b453%20A.2d%20467%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=e1a817dc3856997bcddbb92c47126370> 

IN CRIMINAL ACTION, ANY RESULT OTHER THAN CONVICTION MUST BE CONSIDERED SUCCESS. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=26&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=c2757887bbfa2cffb397d954148788f0> 
Claimants are entitled to partial indemnification if successful on a count of an indictment, which is an independent criminal charge, even if unsuccessful on another related count. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=27&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=9b31b41c9b47b316eb0e1b297010fca1> 

FINDING OR INFERENCE OF WRONGDOING HAS GENERALLY PRECLUDED INDEMNIFICATION under this section. McLean v. Alexander, 449 F. Supp. 1251 (D. Del. 1978), </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=28&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b449%20F.%20Supp.%201251%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=6476dca9de54c2a3e775967f750776dd> rev'd on other grounds, 599 F.2d 1190 (3d Cir. 1979). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=29&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b599%20F.2d%201190%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=6ecc104dfd5ba9639fc8ccbba6bae75a> 

WHAT CONSTITUTES JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION. --Although a plea of nolo contendere may not be used as an admission in another action, upon acceptance by the court and imposition of sentence there is a judgment of conviction against the claimant. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=30&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=0bf9f42586064154d7f5650e186f2830> 

CONVICTION AFTER 1 ALLEGATION OF CRIMINAL INDICTMENT REMOVED. --Where an alleged violation under a count of a criminal indictment was removed, but defendant was still convicted under the count for other violations, defendant had not been "successful" on the merits or otherwise. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 264 A.2d 358 (1970). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=31&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b264%20A.2d%20358%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=4c8a0cf69973b760772cf12452b16600> 

WHEN CASE IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THAT SAME ISSUE MAY BE LITIGATED IN ANOTHER PENDING CASE, an indemnification award would be premature and contrary to the spirit of the statute. Galdi v. Berg, 359 F. Supp. 698 (D. Del. 1973). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=32&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b359%20F.%20Supp.%20698%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=aa95621494ae42b1ec4d6113e68c9a5c> 

STANDARD OF REVIEW. --The reviewing court must treat the Court of Chancery's findings under subsection (b) with substantial deference. Yiannatsis v. Stephanis ex rel. Sterianou, Del. Supr., 653 A.2d 275 (1995). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=33&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b653%20A.2d%20275%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=9fb8cb5841edd4815e9bcb79e3017d83> 

COURT WHICH FINALLY RESOLVES ISSUE HAS AUTHORITY TO AWARD INDEMNIFICATION, if justified under subsection (b) of this section. Galdi v. Berg, 359 F. Supp. 698 (D. Del. 1973). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=34&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b359%20F.%20Supp.%20698%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=d52f8c5d864e73d38a05d06b65cec7e0> 

AND SUCH AWARD COULD INCLUDE REASONABLE FEES AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN DEFENSE. Galdi v. Berg, 359 F. Supp. 698 (D. Del. 1973). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=35&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b359%20F.%20Supp.%20698%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=40ed0254a559e64f6fdb785205cb9b9b> 

STANDARDS USED IN DETERMINING WHETHER FEES HAVE BEEN "REASONABLY INCURRED" for purposes of this section are similar to standards used by courts in awarding fees. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=36&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=780110a715d11f3ee47e3161376322ca> 

CHARGING FLAT FEE FOR EACH TRIAL IS NOT INHERENTLY UNREASONABLE for indemnification under this section. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=37&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=8208aae5fb9cdc41b89f4c7f7328943c> 

FEES DEDUCTED FROM AWARD. --Where the initial purchase of stock represented usurpation of a corporate opportunity, the Court of Chancery properly deducted attorney's fees and past payments from the amounts to be paid to a corporate shareholder for the repurchase of the stock. Yiannatsis v. Stephanis ex rel. Sterianou, Del. Supr., 653 A.2d 275 (1995). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=38&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b653%20A.2d%20275%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=7ae454b4299abde045ea8b28938f94d2> 

RECOVERY OF EXPENSES OF PROXY CONTEST, COUCHED IN TERMS OF BOARD ELECTION, INVOLVING SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES ABOUT CORPORATE POLICY. --Where a proxy contest, though couched in terms of election to the board, was actually one involving substantive differences about corporation policy, former corporate directors, determined to be the management group for the purposes of reelection to the board and, therefore, entitled to use corporate funds to present its position, had an equitable and legal right to recover from the corporation their reasonable expenses resulting from the proxy contest. Hibbert v. Hollywood Park, Inc., Del. Supr., 457 A.2d 339 (1983). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=39&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b457%20A.2d%20339%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=de930b183fe1e03fb1e327641bcb726b> 

EXPENSES INCURRED IN ESTABLISHING ENTITLEMENT TO INDEMNIFICATION. --This section allows for indemnification of legal fees only in the underlying action against an officer or director, and does not allow for recovery of legal fees and expenses incurred in a proceeding to establish an entitlement to such indemnification. Mayer v. Executive Telecard, Ltd., Del. Ch., 705 A.2d 220 (1997). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=40&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b705%20A.2d%20220%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=5f7a88fc0ed17b1cb35e7f2322228208> 

OFFICERS AS CORPORATE EMPLOYEES. --A corporate officer is not, as a matter of law, also a corporate employee merely by virtue of office; whether a corporate officer is also an employee depends on the incidents of the relationship to the corporation. Haft v. Dart Group Corp., 841 F. Supp. 549 (D. Del. 1993). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=41&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b841%20F.%20Supp.%20549%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=f3c68088700b2563987656b669c40069> 

FORMER DIRECTORS HELD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR LEGAL FEES RELATIVE TO UNSUCCESSFUL REELECTION BID. --Former corporate directors were entitled to indemnification for legal fees and related costs incurred with respect to suits filed by them in their unsuccessful bid for reelection to the corporation's board where the pertinent corporation bylaw contained no limitation on the type of action for which an individual, otherwise qualified under the bylaw, must be indemnified and where indemnification would be consistent with subsections (a) and (b) of this section. Hibbert v. Hollywood Park, Inc., Del. Supr., 457 A.2d 339 (1983). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=42&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b457%20A.2d%20339%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=392b602f1875ecc021ee27ab53df148f> 

WITHOUT INTEREST ON EXPENSES ACTUALLY PAID, INDEMNIFICATION WOULD BE INCOMPLETE. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Wolfson, Del. Super. Ct., 321 A.2d 138 (1974). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b321%20A.2d%20138%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=7bf7f1f5536e463fd87258977d03fbff> 

THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN INDEMNIFICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES: (a) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service competently, (b) the likelihood that a particular retainer will preclude other employment by the attorney, (c) the fee customarily charged in the community for similar services, (d) the amount involved in the litigation and the results obtained, (e) the time limitations imposed by the litigation, (f) the nature and length of professional relationship with the client, (g) the experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer performing the services, and (h) a consideration whether the fee is fixed or contingent. Galdi v. Berg, 359 F. Supp. 698 (D. Del. 1973). </research/buttonTFLink?_m=e9aa1ac1445d75454922819368e9e384&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20Del.%20C.%20%a7%20145%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=44&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b359%20F.%20Supp.%20698%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=0b7d8e7ea3d96e74d1a269c3b233dc90> 

USER NOTE: For more generally applicable notes, see notes under the first section of this heading, subchapter, chapter, part or title. 
Top of Form 1
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 
Bottom of Form 1
	

 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 	
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 	

 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 	Source: 	All Sources </research/sel?_m=53b9bcab390bd5354f8ae0ea50cc3faf&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=9ba4b5c348c99792d1332cfc3fd55c2f> > / . . . / > DE - Delaware Code Annotated (including Constitution), Court Rules Annotated and  </research/srcinfo?_m=53b9bcab390bd5354f8ae0ea50cc3faf&src=5083&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=9ba4b5c348c99792d1332cfc3fd55c2f> << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>  </research/srcinfo?_m=53b9bcab390bd5354f8ae0ea50cc3faf&src=5083&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=9ba4b5c348c99792d1332cfc3fd55c2f>	
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 	TOC: 	Delaware Code Annotated </research/retrieve?_m=53b9bcab390bd5354f8ae0ea50cc3faf&_ansset=A-WA-A-WB-MsSEWE-UUW-EEYYCEDBA-CYBEWEZVV-WB-U&_src=5083&tcver=13&_tcinlni=43N1-9KV0-004D-4082&svc=bl&_search=Section%20145&_srchVal=section%20145&_form=bool&_stateList=_src%2csvc%2c_search%2c_srchVal%2c_form&dummy=1&_tcid=5080&_fmtstr=TOC&tcact=initial&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=b9e0a063f47acaad9dbe1ed99a8696af> > / . . . / <javascript:void 0> > 	
		. . . / TITLE 8. CORPORATIONS </research/retrieve?_m=53b9bcab390bd5354f8ae0ea50cc3faf&_ansset=A-WA-A-WB-MsSEWE-UUW-EEYYCEDBA-CYBEWEZVV-WB-U&_src=5083&tcver=13&_tcinlni=43N1-9KV0-004D-4082&al=TAI&svc=bl&_search=Section%20145&_srchVal=section%20145&_form=bool&_stateList=_src%2csvc%2c_search%2c_srchVal%2c_form&tcbill=1&_tcid=5080&tcnid=TAI&_fmtstr=TOC&tcact=bct&tcaid=TAI&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=b9e0a063f47acaad9dbe1ed99a8696af> > CHAPTER 1. GENERAL CORPORATION LAW </research/retrieve?_m=53b9bcab390bd5354f8ae0ea50cc3faf&_ansset=A-WA-A-WB-MsSEWE-UUW-EEYYCEDBA-CYBEWEZVV-WB-U&_src=5083&tcver=13&_tcinlni=43N1-9KV0-004D-4082&al=TAIAB&svc=bl&_search=Section%20145&_srchVal=section%20145&_form=bool&_stateList=_src%2csvc%2c_search%2c_srchVal%2c_form&tcbill=1&_tcid=5080&tcnid=TAIAB&_fmtstr=TOC&tcact=bct&tcaid=TAIAB&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=b9e0a063f47acaad9dbe1ed99a8696af> / . . . 	
		SUBCHAPTER IV. DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS </research/retrieve?_m=53b9bcab390bd5354f8ae0ea50cc3faf&_ansset=A-WA-A-WB-MsSEWE-UUW-EEYYCEDBA-CYBEWEZVV-WB-U&_src=5083&tcver=13&_tcinlni=43N1-9KV0-004D-4082&al=TAIABAE&svc=bl&_search=Section%20145&_srchVal=section%20145&_form=bool&_stateList=_src%2csvc%2c_search%2c_srchVal%2c_form&tcbill=1&_tcid=5080&tcnid=TAIABAE&_fmtstr=TOC&tcact=bct&tcaid=TAIABAE&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=b9e0a063f47acaad9dbe1ed99a8696af> > ? 145. Indemnification of officers, directors, employees and agents; insurance 	
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 	Terms: 	section 145 (Edit Search </research/form/bool?_m=36fba8926004720af18aca48dded6ca5&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=4&_startdoc=1&_startchk=1&wchp=dGLSzS-lSlWk&_md5=d40c9958f31f14d3c1ae6f897bc56a00>)	
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 	View: 	Full	
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 	Date/Time: 	Friday, August 24, 2001 - 5:01 PM EDT	



Best regards,
Gina Karathanos
Sr. Legal Specialist
Enron Global Finance Legal
713-853-3376 phone
713-853-9252 fax