Bloomberg Law®, an integrated legal research and business intelligence solution, combines trusted news and analysis with cutting-edge technology to provide legal professionals tools to be...
Adrienne Kitchen Moeller | Bloomberg Law Hermelin v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., C.A. No. 6936-VCG, 2012 BL 29045 (Del. Ch. Feb. 7, 2012) In an opinion filled with thought-provoking historical references, Vice Chancellor Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery discussed the development of the indemnification and advancement provisions under the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) in the context of whether a former CEO was entitled to mandatory or permissive indemnification. Notably, the court addressed an issue of first impression in Delaware: what evidence is relevant to an inquiry into whether an indemnitee acted in good faith for the purposes of permissive indemnification under DGCL §§ 145(a) and (b).
Monster Pills Lead to Monster Problems for Former CEOThe court noted at the outset of the opinion what the DGCL says must happen and what cannot happen with respect to director and officer indemnification. On the one hand, the DGCL requires a corporation to indemnify a person who was made a party to a proceeding by virtue of his service to the corporation and achieved success on the merits of such proceeding. On the other hand, a corporation may not indemnify a corporate official who was unsuccessful in the underlying proceeding and acted in bad faith. In situations that fall within these outer boundaries, indemnification is generally permissible, and corporations are free to contract with their directors and officers to indemnify them against expenses incurred by them personally as a result of their service to the corporation. In the instant case, plaintiff Marc S. Hermelin, the former chief executive officer of defendant K-V Pharmaceutical Co., was a party to an indemnification agreement with K-V that generally made mandatory "what are permissive provisions for indemnification under the DGCL." Hermelin at 3-4. Hermelin sued K-V after the company refused to indemnify him in connection with several proceedings arising out of investigations by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Justice involving K-V's distribution of oversized morphine sulfate tablets. He sought a declaration from the court that he was entitled to indemnification for six proceedings arising from his conduct, four of which were at issue for the court: the Audit Committee Matter, the Criminal Matter, the FDA Consent Decree Matter, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Exclusion Matter (explained further below). The parties disagreed as to whether Hermelin succeeded on the merits of the subject proceedings and whether he acted in good faith, which would entitle him to indemnification under his contract with K-V.
Mandatory Indemnification Rests on "Success"The court framed the central issue with respect to mandatory indemnification as whether Hermelin was "successful on the merits or otherwise" in the four matters. The parties disagreed as to how closely the court must scrutinize the outcome of a proceeding to determine whether the prospective indemnitee was successful under DGCL § 145. The court explained that when determining success on the merits, the court would not look "behind the result," stating that investigating "how" and "why" the result came to be was unnecessary. Id. at 30. Comparing for each of the matters what Hermelin was charged with or formally accused of with the result Hermelin actually achieved, the court found that:
Permissive Indemnification: What Evidence Demonstrates "Good Faith"?Having rejected mandatory indemnification for three of the matters (including the Audit Committee Matter, which Hermelin did not argue), the court turned to whether Hermelin was entitled to permissive indemnification. The parties disagreed as to what evidence was relevant to a good faith analysis under Section 145(a), since the company bylaws and the indemnification agreement both mandated indemnification where it was permissive under the DGCL. The court pointed out that the issue of what evidence was relevant to an inquiry into whether an indemnitee acted in good faith for the purposes of permissive indemnification had not been squarely addressed under Delaware law and was an issue of first impression. The court looked to the indemnification agreement to begin its analysis, noting that under the agreement, the termination of any proceeding "shall not . . . of itself" adversely affect the right of the indemnitee to indemnification or create a presumption that the indemnitee did not act in good faith. Id. at 41. Finding that the provision "clearly establishes that the particular outcome of a proceeding does not itself create a presumption that the indemnitee had a 'non-indemnifiable state of mind,' the court reasoned that if a showing of bad faith was indeed made, it would be conclusive evidence that the indemnitee was not entitled to indemnification. Id. at 45. The court found that none of the matters for which Hermelin was seeking indemnification contained a finding that he had acted in bad faith or admitted culpability. Thus, the court advised that the parties were required to supplement the record before it could make a determination under Section 145. The court held that a plenary trial on the issue of whether Hermelin acted "'in good faith and in a manner [he] reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of [KV], and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe [his] conduct was unlawful'" was necessary. Id. The court further held that evidence submitted at the trial would be limited to Hermelin's conduct underlying the Criminal, HHS Exclusion, and Audit Committee Matters, and the facts relating to that conduct. In so ruling, the court rejected Hermelin's argument that discovery on the issue of good faith should be limited to the papers and transcripts already on the record in the various underlying proceedings. DisclaimerThis document and any discussions set forth herein are for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, which has to be addressed to particular facts and circumstances involved in any given situation. Review or use of the document and any discussions does not create an attorney-client relationship with the author or publisher. To the extent that this document may contain suggested provisions, they will require modification to suit a particular transaction, jurisdiction or situation. Please consult with an attorney with the appropriate level of experience if you have any questions. Any tax information contained in the document or discussions is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. and its affiliated entities do not take responsibility for the content in this document or discussions and do not make any representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy.©2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Law Reports ® is a registered trademark and service mark of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)