whether actual malice was present. II. Next, Paulson contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in holding that he was not entitled to indemnification from Ford under Delaware law. The district court ruled Ford need not indemnify Paulson under Delaware law because Rudebeck’s claim against him was not “by reason of the fact” that he was an employee, but based on his actions as an individual. Before reaching the merits, we must dispose of several preliminary issues. Ford challenges this court’s jurisdiction to address the indemnification issue because Delaware law now provides that its court of chancery has exclusive jurisdiction over indemnification claims. Del.Code Ann. tit. 8, § 145(k) (Supp.1998); see Jinadu v. CenTrust Mortgage Corp., 517 N.W.2d 84, 86 (Minn.App.1994) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994). But a
holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal holding that a valid waiver of counsel at an early stage of the proceeding does not continue in effect through a subsequent stage holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding that jurisdiction of the subject matter  in either a civil or criminal action may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even after a plea of guilty and for the first time in the appellate court holding party may raise jurisdictional issue at any stage of proceedings