A fired chief executive just made his old company pay for the lawyer fighting its own lawsuit against him. 

Bolt Financial, the payments company, ended its CEO's employment in March 2024. His May 28, 2024 separation deal handed him a $1 million salary payment, health coverage, and accelerated stock - 153,583 unvested shares and 2,246,781 restricted stock units - in return for dropping most claims against the company. 

One carve-out survived. Section 6(c) preserved "claims related to rights to indemnification or insurance." That clause decided the case. 

This was not the first time Bolt covered his defense. When an investor, Activant, sued the company's founder and directors - the former CEO among them - in July 2023, Bolt advanced his fees under a April 2022 indemnification agreement. He was dismissed from that suit with prejudice in December 2024. 

Then Bolt turned on him. In a March 2025 letter it floated suing over "alleged misconduct and breach of fiduciary and confidentiality obligations," and filed in California Superior Court in January 2026. Those claims have not been decided. The former executive again demanded advancement - the company's duty to cover defense costs as they arise, repayable if he loses - and sent his demand, an invoice, and a repayment undertaking in late January. Bolt refused on March 6, 2026, arguing the release had killed the right. 

On August 12, 2026, the Delaware Court of Chancery disagreed. A magistrate granted the former CEO summary judgment and denied Bolt's cross-motion, ruling that advancement is "related to rights to indemnification" and so fell inside the carve-out - even though the deal never used the word. The rights had not expired: because Bolt could still sue him over his time as an officer, he stayed "subject to" a covered proceeding. And Bolt's challenge to the fairness of the original agreement could not stall advancement now. He was also awarded fees-on-fees for enforcing the right. 

The ruling is a Final Report subject to exceptions within three business days, not a final judgment. 

The signal for D&O and management-liability teams: a release that listed "indemnification or insurance" but omitted "advancement" still captured advancement. Broad carve-out wording swept in the defense-cost obligation these programs run on - and left the company funding the defense in a fight it started.