Law360, New York (April 21, 2016, 11:10 AM EDT) -- Advancement and indemnification may be related concepts, but to borrow from "Sesame Street," neither of these things is like the other. As has been noted here, "[t]here is both a distinction and a definite difference between an advancement obligation and an indemnification obligation under Delaware corporate law." In fact, in Homestore Inc. v. Tafeen, 888 A.3d 204, 214 (Del. 2005), the Delaware Supreme Court held that "[a]lthough the right to indemnification and advancement are correlative, they are separate and distinct legal actions" and "[t]he right to advancement is not dependent on the right to indemnification." Indeed, there may be an obligation to advance expenses for a matter that may not ultimately be indemnifiable because "corporations may confer a right to advancement that is greater than the right to indemnification." Appreciating that distinction and definite difference is obviously important in putting into effect indemnification and advancement provisions in favor of the officers and directors of private equity portfolio companies. But as can be seen from this recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision, Hyatt v. Al Jazeera America Holdings II LLC, C.A. 11465-VCG (Del. Ch. March 31, 2016), recognizing this distinction and difference can be even more important in negotiating the acquisition of a target company by a private equity firm....