Goldman Ordered to Advance Defense Fees for Former Employee Accused of Stealing Computer Codes

by Cozen O'Connor

On October 16, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Aleynikov v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., found that a former vice president and computer programmer was an “officer” of Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. (GSCo), and therefore eligible for advancement of legal fees and expenses for his ongoing defense in a New York state criminal case, even though the criminal action concerned the theft of confidential GSCo property. The decision provides an interesting lesson in the differences between indemnification and advancement and who may be considered an officer for purposes of awarding indemnity and advancement.


For two years, Sergey Aleynikov was an employee of GSCo and part of a team of computer programmers responsible for developing source code for GSCo’s high frequency trading system. During his time at GSCo, Aleynikov held the title of “vice president.”

After accepting an offer of employment with a startup company, Aleynikov allegedly copied and transmitted thousands of lines of confidential source code to his home computer. He was eventually arrested by the FBI and charged for his actions.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted Aleynikov on two federal counts and sentenced him to 97 months in prison. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, finding that Aleynikov’s behavior did not fall within the scope of the federal crimes. Shortly thereafter, Aleynikov was rearrested and indicted by a Manhattan grand jury on similar state charges.

GSCo is a limited liability partnership organized under New York law and a non-corporate subsidiary of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman), a Delaware corporation. One section of Goldman’s bylaws provided for indemnification and advancement to directors and officers of Goldman’s subsidiaries.

Aleynikov subsequently sought indemnification for the legal fees and expenses he incurred in the federal case from his former employer, GSCo. He also sought an advancement of legal fees and expenses for his ongoing defense in the New York state criminal case.

Indemnity, Advancement and Officer Status

According to the district court, the main issue in deciding Aleynikov’s motion for summary judgment was whether Aleynikov was entitled to advancement or indemnity as an officer of GSCo within the terms of Goldman’s bylaws.

Delaware Law Authorizes Indemnity and Advancement

The court started by looking to Delaware General Corporate law, which authorizes indemnity of legal expenses when a current or former corporate official has been successful on the merits or otherwise in his legal defense. Delaware also authorizes the advancement of expenses being incurred in pending proceedings. The court recognized that the right to indemnification and the right to advancement are separate and distinct. Specifically, the court noted that indemnification depends on whether the officer’s defense in the litigation was successful. Conversely, advancement depends on the pendency of the claims asserted against the corporate official in that its purpose is to offer “immediate relief from the personal out-of-pocket financial burden” of paying significant legal fees.

Definition of Officer Construed Broadly Based on Strong Delaware Public Policy Concerns

The court noted that, under Goldman’s bylaws, indemnification and advancement are mandatory provided certain conditions are met. Specifically, the bylaws restrict indemnification and advancement to particular persons, including officers, a term defined therein as “any officer of such entity, [and] any person serving in a similar capacity or as the manager of such entity.” Aleynikov did not claim that he served “in a similar capacity” to an officer or that he served as a “manager.” Instead, Aleynikov claimed that his title of vice president made him an officer and therefore, he was entitled to advancement and indemnification of his legal fees.

The court found the question of whether Aleynikov was an officer to be close. Ultimately, the court found that Aleynikov was entitled to the advancement of legal fees and expenses, noting the urgency to fund the defense while it was still pending. The court withheld judgment on the indemnification issue until discovery was more developed and related issues regarding Goldman’s counterclaims, which could provide an offset to the indemnity claim, were ripe for determination.

In determining that Aleynikov was entitled to the advancement of legal fees as an officer of GSCo, the court looked to Goldman’s bylaws and Delaware’s strong statutory policy in favor of advancement and indemnification. According to the court, the public policy served by authorizing advancement of litigation expenses was well-settled, and allowed corporations to retain high-quality directors and officers willing to make “socially useful decisions” involving economic risk. Moreover, the court noted that Delaware law prioritized speed over accuracy in advancement. As such, the court held that Delaware’s strong statutory policy favoring immediate advancement dictated a liberal reading of Goldman’s bylaws in favor of advancement.

Goldman’s Loose Procedures for Appointing Officers Prevents Goldman from Denying that Status to Aleynikov

The court next considered three categories of parol evidence produced in discovery: (a) GSCo’s procedure for appointing officers; (b) Goldman’s and GSCo’s track record of indemnifying personnel; and (c) the effect of title inflation on the meaning of vice president. In looking to GSCo’s appointment procedure, the court found that the company allowed itself a “broad range of discretion, parallel and unrelated” to the procedure in the bylaws, which did not specify any appointment procedure. Goldman, however, contended that GSCo’s practice was to appoint officers only by formal resolutions of the general partner, which were confidential. Because GSCo’s appointment process was highly flexible, it shed little light on interpreting who was an officer for purposes of the bylaw provision and did not create a material, triable issue of material fact.

When looking to Goldman’s track record of indemnification and advancement of officers, the court found that over a six-year period 53 people were considered for advancement or indemnification and Goldman paid the legal fees of 51 of them, including 15 vice presidents. Although one of the persons denied was a vice president, Goldman never cited the person’s title as reason for denying legal fees. Moreover, Goldman’s claims that decisions to provide indemnification or advancements were discretionary did not offer the court insight into the ambiguities of the term officer used in the bylaws. In addition, Goldman contended that, in the financial services industry, the title of vice president is very common and is intended to distinguish someone who is senior to an associate but distinct from an officer within the meaning of the bylaw. Goldman’s evidence of title inflation, however, did not bar summary judgment, in particular because the burden of uncertainty fell on Goldman. Although Goldman may have been generous in providing the title to numerous employees, the court found the company “must bear the consequences of that profligacy.”

Finally, the court considered the record under Delaware law and resolved potential ambiguities in the bylaws under the ordinary rules of contract construction. The court found that the usual and ordinary meaning of the term vice president, and case law, provided that the bylaws were unambiguous. According to the court, the parol evidence offered by Goldman was not sufficient to raise a material issue of fact in light of Delaware’s liberal interpretation principles favoring advancement. Moreover, Delaware’s doctrine of contra proferentem when applied to Goldman’s corporate bylaws required that they be interpreted against Goldman, as the corporate drafter. Whether Aleynikov read or relied on the bylaws was irrelevant, under Delaware law, he was entitled to rely on the rights set forth in them.

The court awarded Aleynikov advancement for fees incurred to date in the state action, reasonable fees going forward, and the fees and expenses incurred in establishing his right to advancement.

With respect to indemnification, however, although there was no dispute that Aleynikov had been successful in the federal action, the court believed that the issues regarding potential offsets that might derive from Goldman’s counterclaims may not have been fleshed out by limited discovery focused mainly on the advancement dispute. Thus, the court denied this part of Aleynikov’s motion pending further discovery.


The issue of whether to pay the legal expenses and fees of an employee accused of wrongdoing is an ever more important concern due to the recent wave of white collar prosecutions. In Aleynikov, Goldman faces advancing defense fees for someone it has accused of misappropriating its trade secrets. The Aleynikov case demonstrates the liberality with which courts may interpret advancement provisions in corporate bylaws governed by Delaware law. The decision also illustrates the pitfalls companies may face when they fail to define precisely who is an officer for purposes of entitlement to advancement or indemnification – a not uncommon situation in corporate bylaws. Finally, Aleynikov also shows that indemnification may not be automatic even when the indemnitee has been successful in the underlying litigation and the bylaw provides for mandatory indemnity. The Aleynikov Court’s analysis of who constitutes an officer and of the differences between advancement and indemnification provides valuable insight for corporations and their D&O insurers on these issues.


Written by:

Cozen O'Connor

Cozen O'Connor on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.