The D & O Diary : Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

In a June 17, 2009 opinion (here), the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s entry, in connection with the $445 million partial settlement of the HealthSouth securities action, of a bar order that extinguished Richard Scrushy’s contractual claims both for indemnification of any settlement he may enter in the case as well as for advancement of his legal defense costs. The opinion raises interesting and important issues and arguably includes some troublesome analysis, particularly with respect to the advancement issues.

Background

In 1994, Scrushy and HealthSouth had entered an agreement requiring HealthSouth to indemnify Scrushy to the fullest extent permitted by law. The agreement also entitles Scrushy to receive advancement of attorneys’ fees as they become due, provided he agrees to repay the amount advanced if it is later determined that he is not entitled to be indemnified.

In 2003, HealthSouth, Scrushy and several other HealthSouth officials were sued in a series of securities class action lawsuits that were later consolidated. Refer here for background regarding the case. In 2006, HealthSouth and several of the officials reached a partial settlement agreement in which HealthSouth and its insurers agreed to pay the plaintiffs $445 million. (The insurance carriers paid $230 million of this settlement amount.) Scrushy was not a party to this settlement, and he has still not settled.

The parties’ stipulation of settlement proposed several bar orders for the court’s approval. Among other things, the proposed bar order extinguished any non-settling party’s claim for contribution against settling parties. The contribution bar order is reciprocal (that is, HealthSouth’s contribution claim against Scrushy is also barred), and is also balanced by a judgment credit, under which a future judgment against non-settling party is to be credited by the amount of the settlement.

The district court entered the bar order over Scrushy’s objections that the order extinguished his contractual indemnification and advancement rights. Scrushy appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

The Opinion

Scrushy raised several arguments against the bar order, contending first that the mandatory contribution bar in the PSLRA was exclusive, and therefore the bar could extend only to his rights to contribution, but not to his separate contractual rights of indemnification and advancement. The Eleventh Circuit held that the PSLRA’s contribution bar was not exclusive, and in fact was enacted against a background of established case law which had approved bar orders precluding indemnification claims.

Scrushy also argued that under case law and the PSLRA if he were to be deprived of valuable rights in a contribution bar order, he is entitled to compensation. The Eleventh Circuit held that the judgment credit represented very valuable compensation, since if Scrushy were to take the case to trial, the plaintiffs "will recover nothing at all from Scrushy and other non-settling defendants unless the verdict exceeds $445 million." The court also noted that Scrushy should be able to use that fact as "a very significant bargaining chip" in settlement negotiations with plaintiffs.

Scrushy argued further that depriving him of his indemnification rights would be contrary to public policy under Delaware law designed "to encourage qualified individuals to serve as corporate officers." The court said that these considerations must be "balanced against countervailing policies in favor of settlement." The court also referenced extensive case law that indemnification of securities violations is inconsistent with policies underlying the securities laws. The court concluded that the bar order’s elimination of Scrushy’s indemnification right was not against public policy.

The court then turned to Scrushy’s argument that the bar order’s elimination of his advancement rights was inappropriate. Scrushy argued that his rights of advancement were independent of any liability he might have to plaintiffs, and therefore it inappropriate in a settlement involving plaintiffs’ liability claims to strip him of his independent contractual rights.

The court conceded that "no circuit court… has addressed this issue" and acknowledged that the injury to Scrushy with respect to his advancement rights is not measured with respect to amounts Scrushy might have to pay to the plaintiffs. However, the court said that "the attorneys’ fees are nonetheless paid on account of liability to the underlying plaintiffs or risk thereof." The court found that the claim for attorneys’ fees "clearly cannot be considered to be independent of his liability to the underlying plaintiffs" because it is "so close in nature of the claims which established case law holds are appropriately barred" that so holding is "a minimal and reasonable extension thereof."

Scrushy raised a separate public policy argument with respect to his advancement rights, arguing that Delaware law "supports advancement of litigation fees for officers and directors to ensure that they will resist unjustified claims, and to encourage qualified individuals to serve."

The court recognized that in the absence of fee advancement "an innocent officer might have difficulty proving his innocence, and thus might have difficulty realizing a prevailing status." But the court said these considerations have to be balanced by policies in favor of settlement. It noted that HealthSouth might well have been reluctant to settle if "it would continue to be liable for endless legal fees to fund Scrushy’s individual defense" as that would constitute "limited peace." The Eleventh Circuit also said (and I want to take care to quote this carefully here) "advancement of legal fees might be inconsistent with the policies underlying the securities laws."

The court rejected Scrushy’s argument that he was not compensated in the bar order for the elimination of his advancement rights; the court said the "overall compensation was adequate" given the judgment credit.

Accordingly the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court to not abuse its discretion in entering the bar order.

Discussion

At one level, the outcome of this dispute is hardly surprising, as it is particularly difficult to meet the "abuse of discretion" standard applicable to the Eleventh Circuit’s review of the district court’s entry of the bar order.

On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit’s apparent commitment to upholding the settlement and to rejecting Scrushy’s claims seems to have driven their consideration of these issues, and whether or not the outcome ultimately is appropriate, there are parts of the court’s analysis that I find less than comfortable.

Although I also have issues with respect to the court’s analysis of indemnification issues, my real concerns relate to the court’s holding regarding Scrushy’s advancement rights.

In particular, the court gave very short shrift to Scrushy’s public policy arguments regarding advancement. True, the court did concede that an innocent officer "might" have difficulty proving his innocence if his advancement rights are eliminated, and (the court delicately added) "might have difficulty realizing a prevailing status."

A fair assessment of these points would not be written in the conditional sense -- there is no "might" about it. The reality is that company official whose advancement rights are cut off is pretty much screwed unless he or she has individual resources to defend him or herself. (I am setting insurance issues to the side here, in order to concentrate on the advancement issues).

I also think the court strained very hard but not very convincingly to substantiate its conclusion that Scrushy’s advancement rights are not independent of the plaintiffs’ liability claims against him.

My overwhelming impression of this opinion is that the outcome was dictated by the identity of the appellant. The fact that it was the notorious and reviled Richard Scrushy before the court clearly seems to have had an impact, and in particular a presumption of Scrushy’s liability for the violation of which he is accused pervades the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. For example, the Eleventh Circuit said that "Scrushy made no showing in the district court that he was merely an innocent bystander with respect to the violations at issue here."

The court also noted, approvingly, that "a party in HealthSouth’s shoes might well have been more willing to leave extant the contractual claims for advancement of fees on the part of an outside director who could adduce evidence of excusable ignorance of the violations."

The unmistakable message seems to be that it is OK for the bar order to extinguish Scrushy’s advancement rights because we all know that he is a bad guy. Indeed, the popular consensus is that Scrushy is a bad guy and even that he did all the stuff that plaintiffs allege. But in our system, we generally require these kinds of things to be proven before they can serve as the basis for depriving someone of their contractual rights. Scrushy was in fact acquitted in the criminal trial relating to these allegations, though later convicted on unrelated bribery and racketeering charges. The entry of the bar order did not follow a trial, it followed only a fairness hearing. (Readers who feel I am disregarding some important findings of fact in connection with these proceedings are invited to let me know if I am overlooking something.)

Several days ago I defended Bank of America’s advancement of Angelo Mozilo’s defense fees (see my prior post here), and many of the things I said there seem applicable here. In reflecting on these issues, I find myself wondering about the Eleventh Circuit’s consideration of public policy under Delaware law. I can’t help but find the contrast overwhelming between the outcome of the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis on the advancement issue here, and the ruling of the Delaware Chancery Court in the Sun-Times case (linked in my earlier post about Mozilo) that the company had to continue to advance defense costs even though the former officers had been convicted of crimes, had been sentenced and were in jail.

It seems to me that the right way to think about the advancement issue is to forget that the appellant here was Richard Scrushy and imagine instead that we are talking about some poor anonymous sucker that got cut out of a settlement and now faces a panoply of securities law allegations by himself. Imagine further that unlike Scrushy the poor sucker has no independent resources with which to defend himself. Perhaps the outcome on the question of the appropriateness of a bar order extinguishing advancement rights might be the same for the poor sucker as it was here. But I find the impression overwhelming that the outcome of this case had to do with the fact that it was about Scrushy and not some anonymous poor sucker.

My final concern about this opinion is that in its zeal to uphold the settlement against Scrushy’s challenge the court managed to say some things that simply don’t stand up. The worst example is the court’s statement (which I quoted carefully above) that "the advancement of legal fees might be inconsistent with the policies underlying the securities laws." I really cannot explain or understand this statement, but it seems to be a very radical suggestion to even pose the possibility that it is against public policy for companies to advance defense fees on behalf of corporate officials who have merely been accused of securities laws violations.

I feel confident that this is a proposition that would elicit no assent in any quarter, but if it were an accurate statement of the law, I think we would see a wave of mass resignations as no one would voluntarily undertake the kind of risks that this proposition implies.

I have said some strong things here. I hope readers who disagree with my view of this case will take the time to add their comments to this post.

Many thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the Eleventh Circuit opinion.

UPDATE: On June 18, 2008, a Jefferson County (Alabama) Circuit Court judge entered a $2.8 billion judgment against Richard Scrushy following a bench trial in a derivative lawsuit filed against him. Although there are no findings of fact in the Final Judgment (copy here), the order clearly represent a finding that Scrushy engaged in the alleged misconduct. This ruling obviously puts the Eleventh Circuit's decision in a different light. However, this ruling had not yet been issued at the time the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision, so I think many if not all of my questions raised above remain valid given the record before the Eleventh Circuit at the time it ruled.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A variety of news articles and blogs have expressed surprise and even outrage that Bank of America is advancing the legal expense that former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo is incurring in defending against the various claims that have been raised against him, including the recent SEC enforcement action.

There is no particular reason for me to bestir myself to justify BofA’s action, particularly since Mozilo has done such an effective job making himself look like a cartoon villain (as I discussed here). But under Delaware law and under the legal understandings that BofA reached when it acquired Countrywide, BofA has a legal obligation to advance Mozilo’s expenses. The only outrage would be if BofA refused to do so.

Countrywide was a Delaware Corporation. BofA is a Delaware Corporation. Under Section 145(e) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, companies are permitted to advance expenses directors and officers incur in defending claims brought against them for actions undertaking in their capacities as directors and officers. Most companies’ by-laws make these advancement requirements mandatory, which I presume would have been the case for Countrywide. Mozilo may even have had a separate advancement and indemnification agreement; many senior executives do. In addition, as reflected in a June 9, 2009 Bloomberg article (here), the two companies’ July 1, 2008 merger agreement specified that Bank of America would maintain Countrywide’s existing indemnification rights for six years.

There is a very good reason for the legal formality surrounding advancement and indemnification; that is, the question of entitlement to these rights usually comes up only after serious allegations have arisen. Accordingly, it is important to lock down rights and obligations at a calmer time, so that duties and expectations are clear if questions later do arise. Having entered these agreements, companies are not at liberty to dispense with the commitments simply because they later find it distasteful or repugnant to honor the commitments.

Mozilo may well be one of the most unpopular figures in the United States right now, and a lot of people want to make him the poster child for everything that went wrong with our financial system. But as reviled as some might perceive him to be, that does not deprive him of his legal rights nor does it relieve BofA, as Countywide’s successor-in-interest, of its legal obligations.

Keep in mind that Mozilo has not been convicted of anything (yet?) – indeed, though he is one of the subjects of an SEC civil enforcement action, no criminal charges have been brought against him. Nor has he yet been found liable in any of the many civil actions against him.

Indeed, even if criminal charges had been brought, Mozilo would nonetheless retain the right to advancement of his defense expenses. In considering the extent of Mozilo’s rights, it is important to recall the July 30, 2008 Delaware Chancery Court opinion (here) in which Vice Chancellor Leo Strine held that the Sun-Times Media Group had to continue to advance the defense expenses of four former officers, including Lord Conrad Black, even though: 1) the four had been convicted of various criminal offenses; 2) the four had already been sentenced; 3) the convictions had been upheld on appeal; and 4) the company had already advanced $77 million in defense expenses for the four. Vice Chancellor Strine held that under Delaware statutory law and the applicable by-law provisions, requiring advancement until "final disposition," the obligation to advance expenses continued until the "final, non-appealable conclusion" of the criminal action, which had not yet been reached.

Whatever else may be said, advancement rights are enforceable and durable. (I will leave aside the problem created by the Schoon v. Troy case, about which refer here, which did seemingly permit the retroactive elimination of advancement rights, the Delaware legislature recently created a statutory remedy for that bobble.)

BofA is of course entitled to obtain from Mozilo an undertaking to repay the expenses advanced if it is later determined that he did not act in "good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation." Mozilo is a very wealthy man, wealthy enough that if the statutory standard for repayment is triggered, BofA can try to recover the amount advanced – that is if there’s anything left at that point.

I understand that the main objection to BofA’s advancement of Mozilo’s defense expenses is that BofA has accepted $45 billion in bailout money. The objection is that taxpayers are effectively paying Mozilo’s legal fees, or something like that.

One might try to argue that, because taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill, companies accepting bailout funds ought to be required to terminate advancement or indemnification rights of former officers and directors, but as far as I know there were no such requirements imposed in connection with the bailout money provided to BofA. Moreover, even though Congress has a pretty impressive record of trying to impose retroactive conditions on bailout recipients -- without the slightest regard for the requirements of binding contracts -- there are still some very good policy reasons why even Congress would have to hesitate to retroactively superimpose a bailout condition like that.

In any event, the objection about Mozilo’s defense expenses is not to advancement of defense expenses as a general matter, but to advancement for Mozilo in particular. There is no principled basis on which to isolate one individual, no matter how unpopular he may be, and single him out as the one person retroactively disentitled to his otherwise enforceable rights. To put it another way, if Mozilo is not entitled to advancement, then no current or former director or officer from an entity receiving bailout funds should be entitled to advancement. I suspect that even the most thick-skulled, grandstanding member of Congress would see the policy concerns with taking that position.

There is an added component to this question – that is, the extent to which Countrywide’s D&O insurance may be reimbursing BofA for its advancement of Mozilo’s defense expense. Countrywide undoubtedly carried D&O insurance, likely with limits of liability in the tens and perhaps in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Countrywide insurance program may have had a significant self-insured retention, but that has likely been satisfied even if it is many millions of dollars.

The problem with D&O insurance as a source of reimbursement for defense expenses is that there are so many lawsuits against Countrywide and its directors and officers in so many different courts that the insurance limits could quickly be depleted or even exhausted, assuming for the sake of discussion that the carriers have not asserted defenses to coverage.

To the extent not reimbursed by insurance, BofA will have to advance Mozilo’s defense expenses. For those who still just find this too much to swallow, here’s one final thought – even if BofA is obliged to pay Mozilo’s defense expense due to an undertaking the merger documents, BofA appears to be making money from the Countrywide acquisition. According to Bloomberg (here), BofA reported mortgage-banking income in the first quarter of $3.71 billion, compared to $1.52 billion in the first quarter of 2008, "because of surging demand for home loan refinancings." This is a significant form of consolation for the fact that BofA is on the hook for Mozillo’s defense expenses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 26, 2008, Judge Gerard Lynch of the Southern District of New York issued another opinion (here) in the D&O insurance coverage litigation arising out of the Refco debacle (My recent post discussing Judge Lynch’s prior opinion in the case discussing insurance application issues can be found here.)

In yet another judicial decision that resonates with significance for excess D&O insurance issues, Judge Lynch, hearing an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling, addressed the question whether an excess insurer may withhold advancement of defense costs based on its determination that an exclusion in its policy precluded coverage. Judge Lynch held that even if the excess policy has the distinct exclusions, the policy's terms do not  affect the operation of the applicable defense cost advancement provisions, and the advancement provisions should be enforced according to their terms.

The background of the case can be found in my prior post. Of significance here, the primary insurer’s $10 million limit and the first level excess insurer’s $7.5 million were exhausted in payment of defense expense. As also discussed in the prior post, the second level excess insurer disputes coverage on a number of grounds. The second level excess insurer also disputes that it has any obligation to advance defense costs pending a determination of coverage.

The parties agree that the advancement provisions in the primary policy control the advancement issue; they dispute how the provisions apply in the context of the second level excess carrier’s policy.

The primary policy specifies that:

The Insurer will pay covered Defense Costs on an as-incurred basis. If it is finally determined that any Defense Costs paid by the Insurer are not covered under this Policy, the Insureds agree to repay such non-covered Defense Costs to the Insurer.

The second level excess insurer [hereafter in this post, simply “the insurer”] contended that notwithstanding this language, it has no obligation to advance defense costs. In making this argument, the insurer relied on the word “covered” in the first sentence of the advancement provision, qualifying the type of defense costs that the provision requires to be paid on an as-incurred basis.

The insurer’s argument is based on its contention that its policy’s conduct exclusions, unlike the primary and first level excess policies’ exclusions, do not have an adjudication requirement. The insurer argued, according to the court, that because the conduct exclusions in its policy have no adjudication requirement, “prior to a court determination, [the insurer] has the unilateral right to determine whether defense costs are ‘covered,’” and that it has made a “good faith determination” that the insureds’ claims are precluded under its policy.

As the court paraphrased the insurer’s position, the insurer contended that the terms of its contract “authorize it to apply its exclusions to deny coverage unilaterally – and thus to refuse to advance defense costs – unless and until a court determines that the costs are ‘covered’” under its policy.

The insureds contend in their counterclaim in the coverage litigation that the exclusions on which the insurer relies to deny coverage “are not, in fact, part of the policy.” With respect to the advancement issue, the insureds argued that the advancement provisions require the insurer to advance defense expense, contending that as long as the claim “falls within the policy’s insuring agreement, it is covered unless and until there is a final determination that an exclusion applies.”

The insureds also argued that nowhere in the insurer’s policy does it state that the insurer can unilaterally withhold defense expense absent a court determination, and nothing in the insurer’s policy states that its exclusions are not subject to the “final determination” language in the second sentence of the advancement provisions.

In his June 26 opinion, Judge Lynch observed that “in essence, the central dispute among the parties centers on who bears the burden regarding whether defense costs are ultimately covered.” Judge Lynch, while noting that the insurer’s position regarding advancement “is not unreasonable on its face,” also noted that the insurer’s interpretation “places enormous emphasis on the word ‘covered.’” Judge Lynch said that the word’s inclusion in the advancement provisions “can hardly be said to make an unambiguous change in the provision’s literal meaning,” and “seems, at best, an unusual way to effectuate a fundamental change in the parties’ expectations.”

Because the court found the wordings to be ambiguous, it interpreted the provision in favor of the insureds – a result that the court noted “makes eminent sense, as adopting [the insurer’s] interpretation … would effectively render the advancement obligation worthless.” Judge Lynch concluded by saying that if the insurer “wants the unilateral right to refuse a payment called for in the policy, the policy should clearly state that right.” (citations omitted)

Whatever else might be said about the court’s opinion, it is certainly a sharp reminder of the importance of inclusion of adjudication requirements in the D&O policy’s conduct exclusions. If, in the absence of an adjudication requirement, the insurer may contend (as did the insurer in the Refco coverage litigation) that it has the unilateral right to determine coverage and withhold policy benefits, then the omission of adjudication requirements is perilous indeed for insureds.

But the crux of the dispute is whether the second level excess insurer’s policy contains exclusions not found in the primary or first level excess policies. The insureds apparently dispute that the exclusions are part of the second level excess policy (although the precise nature of that dispute is not clear from the face of the opinion). Assuming that the distinct exclusions are in fact part of the second level excess insurer’s policy, it does suggest that the insurance program is something less than pure “follow form” insurance. Indeed, many insurance programs that are characterized as “follow form” in fact have characteristics that may make them something less than follow form, a consideration that may sometimes be overlooked in the insurance transaction process.

It is of course true that each policy in a tower of insurance represents a separate contract. Excess insurers have every right to insist on terms differing from the underlying layers. The Refco coverage dispute highlights the pitfalls that can arise when (or perhaps if) an excess policy has terms that differ from the underlying policies. Indeed, the arguments raised by the second level excess insurer in the Refco coverage litigation show that differences in wording between the layers potentially can cause the different layers to operate quite differently, potentially in ways that may not necessarily be apparent or anticipated.

One final note has to do with the parties’ apparent dispute whether the exclusions are in fact part of the second level excess policy. It is hard to tell from the face of the opinion, but this dispute may be due to the process issues discussed briefly in my prior post. At least until the merits are sorted out, it may be premature to try to draw any conclusions. But as I noted in my prior post, and to the extent the dispute is due to process issues, this case may be a reminder of the opportunities for and the dangers of ambiguities in insurance placement process communications. From the perspective of every process participant, after a serious claim has arisen is a very difficult time to have to try to sort out, for example, whether or not exclusions are part of a policy.

Special thanks to Kelly Reyher for providing me with a copy of Judge Lynch's June 26 opinion.

And Finally: For those of us laboring in the salt mines of the blogosphere, it is always exciting when a fellow blogger steps out in some dramatic way. And so I was delighted to see in the July 16, 2008 Wall Street Journal that Mark Herrmann of the Drug and Device Law Blog published a book review critically analyzing the recent book "Side Effects" by Alison Bass. Kudos to Mark for his excellent and well written review.

May all new media practitioners continue to prosper and succeed. Gradus ad Parnassus.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is generally understood that under Delaware law, directors enjoy broad rights of indemnification and advancement. The Delaware statutory regime does allow corporations a great deal of flexibility in how they adapt these provisions to their own circumstances. But while these principles are generally understood, it may nevertheless come as a surprise to many that a corporation’s flexibility to adjust the provisions includes the ability to eliminate former directors' advancement  rights, at least according to a recent Delaware Chancery Court opinion.

A March 28, 2008 opinion in Schoon v. Troy Corporation (here) by Vice Chancellor Stephen P. Lamb held that as a result of a board approved by-law amendment eliminating advancement rights for former directors, a former company director did not have the right to advancement of attorneys’ fees.

The company’s by-law had originally provided that “the Corporation shall pay the expenses incurred by any present or former director.” After one of the company’s directors left the board but before the director became involved in litigation relating to his prior board service, the company’s board deleted the by-law’s reference to former directors.

The former director argued to the court that his right to advancement had vested when he commenced his board service. The former director also sought to rely on a prior Delaware court decision which had held that a board cannot terminate a former director’s advancement rights while litigation is pending. Vice Chancellor Lamb rejected the former director’s arguments, holding that the director’s advancement rights do not become “vested” until litigation is actually commenced.

As Steven M. Haas of the Hunton & Williams law firm noted on the Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog (here), “[t]his holding may surprise some practitioners, given that the purpose of indemnification and advancement is to encourage board service and assure directors that their expenses relating to their official actions will be repaid – even if litigation arises after they resign from the board.”

The possibility that directors could lose their rights to indemnification or advancement after they leave the board may not only “surprise some practitioners,” but it would shock many directors, whom I believe rightly would be appalled to learn that they could be stripped of these rights after they leave the board. At a minimum, this holding strongly reinforces the need for each director to have their own separate indemnification agreement with the company, to reduce the possibility for a later board to eliminate these rights after the director has left board service. Without a separate contractual undertaking, directors may have no assurance that after they leave the board their rights to advancement and indemnification will be preserved.

At the same time, however, it should be emphasized that most directors and officers liability insurance policies include former directors within their definition of insured persons, and that under most circumstances a former director for whom corporate advancement and indemnification has been withheld would still have right to seek defense expense protection and indemnification under the company’s D&O liability policy. There might be some question about which retention would apply under the policy, but that issue aside, the insurance coverage should be available to protect the former director (subject to all of its terms and conditions).

Accordingly, In most circumstances, the company’s D&O insurance program should provide adequate protection even for former directors – assuming that the company has procured and continued to maintain insurance protection, and assuming further that the limits available under the insurance program are not otherwise consumed by other insured persons’ defense expense and indemnity requirements.

For directors who have left board service and who are concerned that events could conspire (whether through by-law revision, or as a result of discontinuance or exhaustion of the D&O insurance) to leave them unprotected, there is another insurance solution available. That is, a director concerned about these circumstances may want to consider a so-called former director and officer liability insurance policy. This kind of coverage, which was described at greater length in a recent CFO.com article (here) is buyer-specific; that is, it belong exclusively to the individual director or officer, and would not be subject to termination or discontinuance by the action or inaction of others. It is also noncancelable, nonrescindable, and provides coverage for up to 6 years after the director resigns, retires or is fired.

The point that should not be lost here is that the director in the case cited above lost his anticipated rights after he left the board. Directors concerned about their rights following board service will want to fully consider the available insurance alternatives.

The Ropes & Gray law firm has a May 5, 2008 memorandum (here) discussing the ways in which by-laws and indemnification agreements might be modified to protect against retroactive elimination of directors' rights.

The Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog has a post (here) discussing other aspects of the Schoon v. Troy decision.

Speakers’ Corner: On May 6, 2008, I will be in Montreal, Quebec, participating in a panel sponsored by the Canadian Chapter of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS). The panel (more information about which can be found here) is entitled “The Subprime Meltdown and its Impact on the Canadian Insurance Landscape” and includes a number of distinguished speakers, included Dr. Faten Sabry of NERA Economic Consulting, David Williams of Chubb, and Denis Durand of Jarislowsky Fraser Limited.

In addition, on May 8, 2008, I will be moderating a panel at a American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section conference in New York. The title of the conference is "Beyond Legal: A Business Approach to Corporate Governance" and the panel is entitled "Identifying, Predicting and Minimizing Securities Litigation Risk." Joining me on the panel will be Nell Minow of the Corporate Library, Professor Eric Talley of the Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, and Patrick McGurn of RiskMetrics. A copy of the conference brochure can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link