I was recently asked to evaluate a corporation’s obligation to indemnify a director named in a derivative suit initiated by the corporation alleging that the director usurped corporate opportunities. The MBCA establishes a standard framework for optional and mandatory indemnification of directors and officers, sets the appropriate boundary of indemnification obligations (i.e,. no reimbursement of derivative suit settlements or intentional misconduct), establishes the procedures for indemnification and advancement of expenses, and provides mechanisms for directors to enforce their indemnification rights through court orders.  The standard procedures for indemnification require the corporation to authorize the indemnification and make a determination that the conduct at issue qualifies for indemnification.

MBCA § 8.55 Determination and Authorization of Indemnification

(a) A corporation may not indemnify a director ….[until after] a determination has been made that indemnification is permissible ..[and].. director has met the relevant standard of conduct ….

(b) The determination shall be made:

(1)…. a majority vote of all the qualified directors…., or by a majority of the members of a committee;

(2) by special legal counsel ….or

(3) by the shareholders, but shares owned by or voted under the control of a director who at the time is not a qualified director may not be voted on the determination.

(c) Authorization of indemnification shall be made in the same manner as the determination that indemnification is permissible…..

 The determination is tricky for advanced expenses because the determination is made before the adjudication and with limited facts.  Yet, as the comments to the MBCA reflect, access to advance funds is often necessary to provide directors/officers with full protection because few individuals have personal resources to finance potentially complex and protracted litigation.  Some states, like Georgia OCGA § 14-2-856 and Delaware § 145, broaden the indemnification provisions established in the MBCA by providing procedures for shareholder agreements to expand the scope of corporate indemnification obligations and avoid the “determination” of complying conduct required under the MBCA.  A writing mandating an advance of expenses creates a vested right that cannot be unilaterally terminated. More importantly, statutes that recognize a vested right to advanced expenses avoids the requirement of a determination regarding the advance, which will often constitute a self-dealing transaction (director named in suit and seeking advance, also votes on determination of conduct qualification for indemnification) and therefore requires the entire fairness evaluation.

The expanded indemnification statutes raise all sorts of interesting questions about the scope of indemnification (the Georgia statute for example is intended to expand the scope to possibly include derivative suit settlements and fines), the process required for the mandatory advances (i.e., whether a shareholder vote approving the obligation can later be attacked because a defendant, who is now conflicted, voted shares in favor of the obligation), and whether these provisions violate public policy.  If you know of cases addressing these issues or litigating these expanded indemnification statutes in other jurisdictions, please respond in the comments.

Anne Tucker