, JURISDICTION-B-JURISDICTION Jurisdictions that make advancement statutorily mandatory subject to opt-out or limitation. EXPRESSL MANDATOR 1 Minnesota 302A. 521, Subd. 3 North Dakota 10-19.1-91 4. Ohio 1701.13(E)(5), but not cross-examinable, see, Miller v. Miller, 973 N.E. 2d 228 (Ohio 2012) 1 In the writer's opinion, the statutes of the jurisdictions labeled "" on their face permit the corporation to at least delay advancement by arguing that any mandatory contract for advance is statutorily overbroad if it is interpreted to prohibit the board from assessing the legality of the questioned conduct on a case specific basis. The writer is not licensed to practice in all 52 jurisdictions and defers to licensed practitioners.
Jurisdictions that follow the Delaware model that (a) statutorily only permits indemnification, (b) generally requires no profession of innocence of breach of fiduciary duty as a condition of advancement, but (c) arguably refuses mandatory advancement if the executive is only granted "indemnity to the fullest extent permitted by law" without an express grant of advancement rights. 2 EXPRESSL MANDATOR Arkansas 27-850 California 317(f) (but can be added only in articles of incorporation) Delaware 145(e) Florida 607.0850(6) Illinois 5/8.75(e); (F) Kansas 17-6305(e) Louisiana 12:83D Maryland 2-418(f) Missouri 351.355, 5 New Mexico 53-11-4.1F Oklahoma 18, 1031E Puerto Rico 14, 3568 Rhode Island 7-1.2-814(e); (g) 2 See, Advanced Mining Systems, Inc. v. Fricke, 623 A.2d 82 (Del. Ch. 1992) and Majkowski v. American Imaging Management Services, LLC, 913 A.2d 572 (Del. Ch. 2006). 2
Jurisdictions inspired by recent versions of the Model Business Corporation Act that (a) condition advancement upon an assertion of innocence of breach of fiduciary duty but (b) expressly repudiate Delaware rule that language granting indemnity "to the fullest extent permitted by law" does not carry with it a right to advancement. 3 EXPRESSL MANDATOR Connecticut 33-773; 778 District of 29-306.53; 306.58 Columbia Georgia 14-2-853; 859(f) Hawaii 414-244; 249 Idaho 30-1-853; 858 Iowa 490.853; 858 Maine 13, 854; 859 Massachusetts 156D, 8.53; 8.58 Mississippi 79-4-8.53;8.58 Nebraska 21-20,105; 110 South Dakota 47-1A-853; 858 Virginia 13.1-699; 704 West Virginia 310-8-853; 858 Wyoming 17-16-853; 858 3 See, Model Business Corporation Act Annotated, 8.53(a) (4 th Ed., 2013). 3
Jurisdictions inspired by the Model Business Corporate Act that do not (yet) repudiate the Delaware rule declining to grant advancement in cases where indemnitees are promised only "indemnity to the fullest extent permitted by law." Alabama 10A-1-6.24; 6.25 PROFESSION OF EXPRESSL MANDATOR Alaska 10.06.490(e) Arizona 10-853 Colorado 7-109-104;109 Indiana 23-1-37-10; 15 Kentucky 271 B.8-530; 580 Michigan 450.1564(b), 1565 Montana 35-1-454; 459 Nevada 78.751.2 New Hampshire 293-A:8.53 New Jersey 14A:3-5(6) and (7)(a)(i) (provided that advancee "by his pleadings or during the course of the proceedings raised genuine issues of fact or law") (effectively, on analogy to N statute and decisions) New ork 721; 723(c); 724 (provided that advancee "by his pleadings or during the course of the litigation raised genuine issues of fact or law") (effectively) (See, Pilipiak v. Keyes, 729 N.. Supp. 2d 99 (App. Div. 2001); Bee v. BDO Seidman (contact JDW for reference) 4
PROFESSION OF EXPRESSL MANDATOR North Carolina 55-8-53; 57 Oregon 60.397(4); 60.414 Pennsylvania 1745; 1746 South Carolina 33-8-530 Tennessee 48-18-504; 509 Texas 8.104 Utah 16-10a-904 Vermont 8.53 Washington 23B.08.530 Wisconsin 180.0853; 0858 Copyright James D. Wing, 2014, all rights reserved. 5