A recent Chancery decision rejected several defenses to advancement, including the commonly unsuccessful argument that the claims in the underlying case were not made against those seeking advancement in their capacity as former officers. In Esposito v. Drivers History Information Sales LLC, C.A. No. 2026-0579-DG, Order (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2026)(Gibbs, M.), the Court also granted the routine fees-on-fees as well as interest on unpaid amounts.
Chancery Rejects Advancement Defenses
Recent Comments