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

Carriers generally contend that  insurance does not cover amounts that represent “disgorgement” or that are “restitutionary” in nature. But what makes a particular payment a “disgorgement”?  In a December 13, 2011 opinion (here), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Department, First Division, held that amounts Bear Stearns paid in settlement of SEC late trading and market timing  allegations represented a disgorgement that is not covered under its  insurance program.  Because the appellate court’s decision reversed the lower court ruling that the settlement payment did not constitute a disgorgement, the case provides an interesting perspective of the question of what makes a particular payment a “disgorgement” for purposes of determining insurance policy coverage.

Background

In 2006, the SEC notified Bear Stearns that the agency was investigating late trading and market timing activities units of Bear Stearns had undertaken for the benefit of clients of the company. The agency advised the company that it intended to seek injunctive relief and monetary sanctions of $720 million. Bear Stearns disputed the allegations, among other thing arguing that it did not share in the profits or benefit from the late trading, which generated only $16.9 million in revenue.

Bear Stearns ultimately made an offer of settlement and --without admitting or denying the agency “findings” – consented to the SEC’s entry of an Administrative Order, in which, among other things, Bear Stearns agree to pay a total of $215 million, of which $160 million was labeled “disgorgement” and $90 million as a penalty.

At the relevant time, Bear maintained a program of insurance that, according to the subsequent complaint, totaled $200 million. Bear Stearns sought to have the carriers in the program indemnify the company for the company’s settlement with the SEC. However, the carriers claimed that because the $160 million payment was labeled “disgorgement” in the Administrative Order, it did not represent a covered loss under the insurance policies.

In 2009, J.P. Morgan (into which Bear Stearns merged in 2008) filed an action seeking a judicial declaration that the insurers were obliged to indemnify the company for the amount of the $160 million payment in excess of the $10 million self insured retention. The company’s supplemental summons and amended complaint can be found here. The company argued that notwithstanding the Administrative Order’s reference to the amount as “disgorgement,” its payment to resolve the SEC investigation constituted compensatory damages and therefore represented a covered loss under the insurance program. In support of this contention, the company further argued that Bear Stearns’ earned only $16.9 million in revenue and virtually no profit from the late trading and market timing activities, and therefore the SEC settlement amount could not have represented a disgorgement. The carriers moved to dismiss the company’s declaratory judgment action

The Lower Court’s September 14, 2010 Order

In an order entered September 14, 2010, (here), New York (New York County) Supreme Court Charles E. Ramos denied the carriers’ motion to dismiss. He held that the Administrative Order’s use of the term “disgorgement” did not conclusively establish that the settlement amounts were precluded from coverage.

In reaching this conclusion, he noted that the Administrative Order “does not contain an explicit finding that Bear Stearns directly obtained ill-gotten gains or profited by facilitated these trading practices,” and he found that the provision of the Order alone “do not establish as a matter of law that Bear Stearns seeks coverage for losses that include the disgorgement of improperly acquired funds.” He also found that the Order does not, as would be required to preclude coverage “conclusively link the disgorgement to improperly acquired funds.”  He noted in that regard that “there are no findings that Bear Stearns directly generated profits for itself as the result” of the alleged misconduct and for him to so conclude now “would be to resolve disputed issues of material fact.”

Because he found that he was “unable to conclude, on the basis of the language of the Administrative Order alone that the disgorgement is specifically linked to the improperly acquired funds,” he rejected the insurers’ argument that they were entitled to dismissal.

The December 13 Appellate Decision

A December 13, 2011 opinion written by Justice Richard Andrias of  the N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court’s holding, granted the motions to dismiss and directed the entry of judgment in favor of the insurers. Contrary to Justice Ramos, the appellate court concluded that the sequence of events and allegations “read as a whole” are:

not reasonably susceptible to any interpretation other than that Bear Stearns knowingly and intentionally facilitated illegal late trading for preferred customers, and that the relief provisions of the SEC Order required disgorgement of funds gained through that illegal activity.

The Court went on to state that “the fact that the SEC did not itemize how it reached the agreed upon disgorgement figure does not raise an issue as to whether the disgorgement payment was in fact compensatory.” 

The Court further noted that in generating revenue of at least $16.9 million, “Bear Stearns knowingly and affirmatively facilitated an illegal scheme which generated hundreds of millions of dollars for collaborating parties and agreed to disgorge $160,000,000 in its offer of settlement.”  

Discussion         

Given that the SEC Administrative Order expressly identified the $160 million portion of the settlement as a “disgorgement,” it was always going to be an uphill battle to establish that the amount was not a disgorgement. The company argued essentially that the amount was not a disgorgement because the payment did not correspond to any specific pecuniary benefit that Bear Stearns received. The company argued in paying the amount it was not so much disgorging anything so much as it was paying damages. Justice Ramos concluded that the Administrative Order was not factual conclusive and that there was enough of an issue that dismissal was not appropriate.

The appellate court essentially concluded that the question was not so much whether Bear Stearns was disgorging an amount corresponding to its own specific pecuniary gain, but rather whether or not it was disgorging amounts that its “illegal scheme” had “generated.”  In effect, it was enough to show that there was a benefit from the illegal conduct, whether or not person making the disgorgement directly received that benefit.

This case is fairly fact specific, but it still a useful and interesting decision because it reaffirms the basic principles around the insurability of disgorgements and because it illustrates the issues to be considered in determining whether or not a specific amount represents a disgorgement or not.

All of that said, the company may still seek to appeal this decision to the New York Court of Appeals and so there may yet be more to be heard in connection with this case.

Chris Dolmetch’s December 13, 2011 Bloomberg article discussing the opinion can be found here.

Advisen Management Liability Journal: Although I suspect that most readers of this blog have already seen it, if you have not yet had a chance, you will want to take a look at the inaugural issue of the Advisen Management Liability Journal, which can be found here. The publication is attractive and interesting and it clearly represents a welcome addition to help in the exchange of ideas in the D&O insurance industry. My congratulations to everyone at Advisen for this inaugural issue, particularly my good friend, Susanne Sclafane, the publication’s senior editor. I am sure everyone in the industry is looking forward to future editions of this publication.

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

One of the thorniest D&O insurance coverage issues is the question of the applicability of a policy exclusion when coverage preclusive conduct has been alleged – but not proven. In a November 14, 2011 opinion (here), District of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken held that the mere allegations in the underlying claim, even if otherwise sufficient to constitute precluded “bad faith” within the meaning of a policy exclusion, were insufficient to preclude coverage where the underlying claim settled and the allegations were not proven. Though the specific exclusion involved is unusual, the dispute itself raises a number of interesting issues.

Background

Summit Accomodators, Inc. was in the business of facilitating so-called “1031 exchanges.” The company experienced liquidity issues in late 2008 and filed for bankruptcy. In June 2009, the trustee for the Summit Accomodators Liquidation Trust filed a civil action against Umpqua Bank, alleging that the bank knowingly aided and abetted the principals of Summit in the perpetration of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

Among other things, the trustee’s complaint alleged that “highest level of management at Umpqua Bank … became fully aware of the Ponzi scheme and the principals’ embezzlement. …Yet [the bank officials] continued to actively encourage and materially assist the Summit principals.” The bank is alleged to have aided the scheme by providing banking services including loans and by encouraging bank customers to use Summit’s services.  Additional lawsuits later arose. The suits were later consolidated and ultimately settled.

At the time the claims arose, the bank was insured under a D&O liability insurance policy. The insurer funded the bank’s defense in the litigation. However, the insurer disputed that the policy provided coverage for the underlying settlement. Ultimately, the insurer contributed 41% of the settlement amount. The bank sued the insurer for breach of contract (refer here for the bank’s complaint), seeking to recover the balance of the settlement amount from the insurer. The insurer answered the complaint and also counterclaimed for return of the 41% of the settlement that it had funded, arguing that there was no coverage under the policy for the settlement (refer here for the insurer’s Answer and Counterclaim).

In arguing that the policy precluded coverage for the settlement, the insurer relied on Policy Section V (illegal profit/payment exclusion):

The Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss, other than Defense Costs, in connection with any Claim arising out of or in any way involving:

1. any Insured gaining, in fact, any profit, remuneration, or financial advantage to which the Insured was not legally entitled;

2. payment by the Company of inadequate or excessive consideration in connection with the purchase of Company securities; or

3. conflicts of interest, engaging in self-dealing, or acting in bad faith. 

In disputing coverage, the insurer relied principally on subsection 3 of this provision, the “bad faith” exclusion.

The insurer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the applicability of the bad faith exclusion could be determined “based solely on the undisputed terms of the complaints in the underlying litigation against the bank.” (The insurer’s memorandum in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings can be found here). The bank filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The November 14 Order

In her November 14, order, Judge Aiken denied the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted in part the bank’s cross-motion for summary judgment. In making her ruling, Judge Aiken did not construe the phrase “acting in bad fait,” or determine whether the underlying allegations constituted “bad faith,” as she deemed it sufficient to determine whether or not the exclusion could be triggered by the mere allegations in the underlying litigation.

The insurer had argued that the egregious allegations of the bank’s complicity in the alleged Ponzi scheme were sufficient to trigger the exclusion. In support of its contention that allegations alone were sufficient, the insurer argued that the reference in the policy’s definition of Wrongful Act to an “actual or alleged” act, error or omission was incorporated into all of the policy exclusions, setting up an “allegations alone” trigger for all exclusions. The insurer also contrasted subpart 1 of the exclusion at issue, which expressly required an “in fact” determination that that the precluded conduct occurred, with the “bad faith” subpart, which has no such “in fact” determination requirement.

Judge Aiken rejected these arguments.  First, she found that, contrary to the insurer’s “surreptitious interpretation,” the exclusion “does not actually state that it is triggered by allegations of bad faith,” and that “the word ‘alleged’ is at no point used within the exclusion.” She added that “in its attempt to avoid its contractual duty to indemnify,” the insurer “erroneously substitutes the term ‘alleged act’” in its interpretation of the exclusion.

Judge Aiken noted further that when the insurer “intended the policy exclusions to be activated by mere allegations, it did so expressly within the actual text of the policy.” She noted in that regard that both the policy’s Pollution Exclusion and its Bodily/Personal Injury and Property Damage Exclusion both expressly reference “alleged” activity or conduct as triggering the exclusion.

Finally, she noted that “at the very least,” the insurer’s “imprecise drafting allows the Exclusion to have more than one reasonable interpretation,” and accordingly she was required to construe the policy in favor of coverage.

Discussion

A recurring problem D&O insurers face is the question of their coverage obligations in circumstances  involving alleged egregious misconduct, when the misconduct has not yet been the subject of formal proof. Two scandals currently on the front pages of the business sections illustrate this issue. The newspapers are full of stories suggesting that MF Global improperly applied customer funds. Olympus Corp. has actually admitted that it misrepresented certain transaction costs in order to mask certain investment losses.

The general movement in most D&O insurance policies in recent years has been toward an “after adjudication” standard for conduct exclusions, meaning that the exclusionary language does not preclude coverage unless and until there has been a judicial determination that the precluded conduct has occurred. To the extent that the conduct exclusions in the MF Global or Olympus insurance policies apply only after an “adjudication,” the exclusions in those policies would not presently operate to preclude coverage notwithstanding the allegations or admissions involving the companies. Indeed, because so few directors and officers liability cases actually go to trial, there are rarely “adjudications” and so the preclusive effect of the conduct exclusions is rarely triggered.

I refer to these contemporary examples to highlight the fact that, at least as most current D&O insurance policies are written, D&O insurers are often called upon to provide coverage even in the circumstances involving egregious underlying allegations. Clearly, in the Umpqua Bank case, the insurer was deeply troubled by the allegations in the underlying complaint of the bank’s complicity in the alleged Ponzi scheme. But as disturbing as the trustee’s allegations may be, the mere fact that these things were alleged does not mean that any of these things actually happened or that they happened the way the trustee alleged.

The exclusion at issue in the Umpqua Bank case contained no “adjudication” requirement. It did not even, as the insurer pointed out, contain an “in fact” provision requiring that the precluded conduct occurred.  The absence of these types of provisions allowed the interpretation of the exclusionary language that the carrier took in this case, and makes the carrier's position not unreasonable.

However, the exclusions’ lack of a specific trigger does not necessarily mean that mere allegations alone are sufficient to trigger the exclusion.Many (if not most) directors and officers liability complaints contain allegations asserting  “conflicts of interest, engaging in self-dealing, or acting in bad faith.” If those types of mere allegations alone were sufficient to preclude policy coverage, then the exclusion’s preclusive effect would reach so broadly that it would swallow up much of the intended coverage for which the policyholder purchased the policy in the first place. Certainly, it would seem that if the insurer was to narrow coverage so dramatically for mere allegations, then it ought to do so explicitly.

Indeed the potentially preclusive scope of this policy exclusion may explain why the exclusion is relatively unusual. Many purchasers and their advisors would find it better to avoid policies with this type of language, particularly given this insurer’s formulation of the language.

By the same token, the potential breadth of the exclusion’s preclusive effect is yet another reason to support Judge Aiken’s narrow interpretation. If the parties had intended mere allegations of  “conflicts of interest, engaging in self-dealing, or acting in bad faith” to preclude indemnity coverage, then the exclusion would have expressly included the word “alleged,” as was the case with the two other policy exclusions Judge Aiken referenced in her opinion. The presence of the word “alleged” in the other exclusions and its absence in the “bad faith” exclusion, at a minimum, allows, as Judge Aiken found, “more than one reasonable interpretation” of the question whether or not mere allegations are sufficient to trigger the “bad faith” exclusion.

Readers who are wondering why the name Umpqua Bank sounds familiar may recall that in an earlier post (here), I wrote about the derivative lawsuit that the shareholders of Umpqua’s holding company filed against company officials after t  62% of shareholders voted “no” in the advisory shareholder vote on the company’s 2010 executive compensation plan. The claims asserted in the lawsuit rely directly on the negative note.

FDIC Files Another Failed Bank Lawsuit: And speaking of bank litigation -- the FDIC has filed another lawsuit against the former directors and officers of a failed bank. On November 18, 2011, the FDIC filed an action in the Western District of Washington against eleven former directors and officers of Westsound Bank, which failed on May 8, 2009. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

In its complaint, the FDIC seeks to recover at least $15 million in principal losses the bank suffered on 28 commercial loans. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to properly supervise the bank’s lending operations. The complaint alleges that certain loans were approved in violation of the bank’s lending policies and in disregard of regulatory warnings.

The complaint further alleges that 21 fraudulent loans to the Russian/Ukrainian community would not have been made if the defendants had heeded regulatory warnings and properly supervised lending operations. Finally, the complaint seeks to recover losses on preferential loans that were made to directors and director-led companies.

The FDIC’s complaint against the former Westsound Bank officials is the 17^th the agency has filed against former directors and officers of failed banks as part of the current wave of bank failures. Like many of the suits the FDIC previously filed, this one came well over two years after the bank’s failure. The sheer number and timing of the bank failures during the current wave (which now total over 400) and the FDIC’s deliberate litigation approach suggests that there are many other lawsuits to come in the months and years ahead.

The FDIC recently updated its professional liability lawsuits page on its website to reflect that the agency has approved an increased number of lawsuits. The updated page (here) shows that as of November 14, 2011, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 37 failed institutions against 340 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $7.6 billion. Though the FDIC has authorized lawsuits involving 37 institutions, it has filed only 17 lawsuits involving 16 institutions so far – suggesting that there are many lawsuits yet to come, just taking into account the lawsuits authorized so far.

With more lawsuits likely to be authorized in the future, and with banks continuing to fail (two more were closed this past Friday evening), it seem probable that the number of lawsuits involving former directors and officers of failed banks will continue to accumulate for years to come.

Cybersecurity Disclosure: In the quarterly Advisen webinar last week, one of the topics discussed was the SEC’s new disclosure guidelines regarding cybersecurty risks and exposures. Readers interested in learning more about the SEC’s guidelines will want to refer to the November 17, 2011 memorandum from John Nicholson of the Pillsbury law firm, entitled “Accounting for Cybersecurity: SEC Guidance in Disclosures to Investors and Regulators” (here). The memo includes a detailed discussion of the new guidelines and the challenges that companies may face in trying to comply with the guidelines.

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

An inevitable part of the current wave of bank failures has been the FDIC’s filing of lawsuits against former directors and officers of the failed institutions. And though the FDIC’s initiation of this litigation has been gradual, the lawsuits have now started to accumulate in significant numbers. And just as this FDIC litigation was perhaps inevitable once the banks started to faile, so too it was also perhaps inevitable that the FDIC lawsuits would be accompanied by D&O insurance coverage litigation.

As discussed below, the failed bank insurance coverage lawsuits are now starting to arrive. If the initial cases are any indication, one of the main coverage battlegrounds will be the typical D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion. Specifically, the question will be whether the FDIC as receiver pursuing the failed bank’s claim against the bank’s former directors and officers is acting as an “insured” under the D&O policy so as to preclude coverage under the policy.

First up in this analysis is Michigan Heritage Bank of Farmington Hills, Michigan, which failed on August 29, 2009 (about which refer here). As discussed in greater detail here, on August 8, 2011, the FDIC, as the bank’s receiver, filed a lawsuits in the Eastern District of Michigan against a single former officer of the bank.

What followed next is that on November 1, 2011, Michigan Heritage’s D&O insurer filed an action in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking a judicial declaration that there is no coverage for the underlying lawsuit or for the bank officer’s defense expenses under the bank’s D&O policy. A copy of the insurer’s declaratory judgment complaint can be found here.

Among other things, the carrier seeks a judicial declaration that the policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage for the underlying lawsuit. The insurer’s argument is that as the bank’s receiver, the FDIC is asserting the bank’s own claims and is seeking to recover the bank’s losses. Therefore, the carrier contends, the FDIC’s lawsuit is a claim “by, on behalf of, or at the behest of” the bank, and as the bank and the defendant loan officer are both insureds under the policy, the policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage.

A very similar sequence has also followed with respect to Westernbank, of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, which failed on April 30, 2010. As reflected here, on December 17, 2010, the FDIC, through its outside counsel, sent a letter to Westernbank’s D&O insurer asserting claims against the bank’s former directors and officers.

Westernbank’s directors and officers , in turn, on October 6, 2011, filed an action in local Puerto Rico court seeking judicial declaration that the FDIC’s claim is covered under the bank’s D&O policy. The complaint, which is in Spanish, can be found here. According to an October 14, 2011 press release from the direcrors and officers' counsel, the complaint seeks a judicial declaration with respect to “the controversial and critical question whether the FDIC-R can be deemed an insured under the Policy so as to excuse [the carrier] from providing coverage.”

Though these declaratory judgment actions have only just been filed, they are in many ways a vestige of an earlier time. As I discussed in a blog post way back in August 2008, when the current bank wave was only just starting to unfold, the question whether the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage for claims by the FDIC as receiver against former directors and officers of failed banks was hotly contested during the S&L crisis. As I said in my earlier post, and as appears likely now, the Insured vs. Insured exclusion could be a critical part of the failed bank insurance coverage litigation during the current round of bank failures as well.  

During the S&L crisis, where the FDIC had its greatest success in overcoming the Insured vs. Insured exclusion was where it was able to argue successfully that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage only with respect to collusive lawsuits. Because it was able to show that its claims and lawsuits were fully adversarial, it was able to establish that the exclusion did not apply.

The FDIC was not uniformly successful in arguing that the exclusion only precluded collusive claims, and there has in fact been some intervening case law to the effect that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion applies even when the underlying claim is not collusive.

It will in any event be interesting to see how these coverage cases develop. The one thing that seems certain is that as the FDIC failed bank litigation continues to accumulate, so too will the related coverage litigations. Many of the related coverage suits likely will also involve these same Insured vs. Insured issues.

Another issue that is likely to be litigated in coverage cases arising out of FDIC failed bank litigation is the enforceabilty of the so-called Regulatory Exclusion, which when present in the D&O policy precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC and other regulators. Not all policies implicated in the bank failures have these exclusions, but where they are present they are likely to be relied upon by the carriers to contest coverage. It is probably worth noting that these issues were fully litigated during the S&L crisis and the courts generally found that the regulatory exclusion precluded coverge for FDIC claims. My prior blog post about the regulatory exclusion can be found here.

A good summary of the D&O insurance coverage issues involved in FDIC failed bank litigation can be found here.

Special thanks to the several loyal readers who sent me links to ths source documents referenced above.

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

The current global financial crisis may result in "unprecedented levels of litigation" that "will either serve to identify ‘weak links’ in the chain of participants who originate, appraise, and service collateral and underwrite, manage, insure, rate and sell securities," or it will serve to "highlight where the market may have underappreciated certain risks or failed to appreciate certain circumstances," according to a paper featured in a March 17, 2009 post (here) on the Harvard Law School blog.

The paper, entitled "Legal and Economic Issues in Litigation Arising From the 2007-2008 Credit Crisis," was written by Babson College Professor Jennifer Bethel, Harvard Law Professor Allen Ferrell, and Babson Professor Gang Hu, can be found here.

The paper explores the "economic and legal causes and consequences of the 2007-2008 credit crisis." In particular, the paper examines "the risks that can arise from financial and technology innovations and losses that are uniquely related to correlated events in the setting of loan markets." The paper sets for a detailed and interesting overview of the economic and financial causes that contributed to the current credit crisis.

The paper also notes that "the credit crisis is not solely an economic phenomenon, but a legal one as well." The paper discusses a number of different types of lawsuits that have arisen, but focuses in particular on securities class action lawsuits against public companies, which the paper describes as "by far the most important litigation likely to arise out of the credit crisis."

The paper asserts that "plaintiffs that bring Rule 10b-5 class action lawsuits will face substantial challenges," and notes in particular that the securities plaintiffs will have to navigate around three basic legal principles: "(i) there can be no ‘fraud by hindsight’; (ii) there can be no actionable disclosure deficiency with respect to information the market already knew (the ‘truth on the market’ defense); and (iii) plaintiffs must establish loss causation for their claims."

First with respect to the "fraud by hindsight" concern, the paper notes that it will not be enough for plaintiffs to show that there have been economic losses; they will also have to show that the adverse developments were reasonably foreseeable at the time the supposedly disclosures were made. The authors note that

Whether a failure of certain market participants to provide detailed disclosures regarding the implications of an event – the first full national fall in housing prices since World War II in conjunction with a dramatic and increasingly global crisis – from which the actors themselves suffered huge losses is actionable will likely prove an important stumbling block, in our judgment, for a number of actions being brought.

The authors add that "the presence of disclosure failures and materiality thereof must be assessed in light of what was known at the time of the disclosures without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, even if losses occur."

Second, with respect to the "truth on the market" defense, the authors question whether the target companies in fact had "special knowledge that was not known by the market at large." The authors suggest that this may have been a situation where the market was at least as informed, or at least no less informed, than the defendants on relevant issues.

Third, the authors suggest that "loss causation is likely to be a challenging litigation issue for plaintiffs, because market prices, especially of financial-sector securities, declined overall."

The few dismissal rulings that have accumulated so far provide at least some support for the authors’ theories. In at least two cases where dismissal motions have been granted with prejudice – the NovaStar Financial case (about which refer here) and the Impac Mortgage case (refer here) – the courts seemed particularly concerned that the defendant companies had been caught in an industry-wide or even economy-wide downturn. Even if the courts did not use the price phrase "fraud by hindsight," the concept was seemingly implied in the rulings.

At the same time, however, there have also been significant cases where courts have had no difficulty denying dismissal motions – for example, New Century Financial (refer here) and Countrywide (here) – in which the courts have expressed open outrage regarding the alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The authors’ analysis seems deficient to me to the extent it fails to recognize the possibility that at least some courts’ judgments potentially may be affected by this sense of outrage, particularly over the extent of damage done, to investors and to the economy. (A list of all of the subprime dismissals and dismissal motion denials can be accessed here.)

In addition, given the authors overall hypothesis that plaintiffs will face substantial hurdles in pursuing these cases, it seems a noteworthy and even odd omission that the authors detailed and exhaustive paper neglects to even mention the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Tellabs case could also represent a significant hurdle for the plaintiffs. In that regard, the Tellabs decision has generally proven instrumental in those cases where dismissal motions have been granted thus far.

Finally, with respect to the authors’ suggestion that loss causation issues may prove critical, I note that in a prior post (here) I discussed the challenge that plaintiffs may face where they have sued for supposed economic losses on securities that continue to provide scheduled interest payments on time and in full. These arguments may be particularly relevant in claims brought by mortgage-backed securities investors who have sued the securities issuers and the securities offering underwriters.

Defenseless: Laura Pendergast-Holt, the erstwhile Chief Investment Officer of Stanford Financial Group, has a few legal problems to sort out. First, she is a defendant in an SEC enforcement proceeding involving the Stanford Group. Second, she was arrested on February 26, 2009 and charged with obstructing a proceeding before an agency of the United States. Third, she has been named as one of the defendants in numerous civil lawsuits brought by irate Stanford group investors. (A complete list of Stanford-related litigation can be accessed here.)

Ms. Pendergast-Holt clearly needs the services of an attorney. Unfortunately, she is also party to one more lawsuit, one in which she is the plaintiff, and which suggests the challenges she may have in providing for her legal representation in the above matters.

On March 17, 2009, she filed a lawsuit in Texas (Dallas County) District Court against Stanford Group’s directors and officers’ liability insurer, alleging that the insurer has "failed and refused to provide a defense so that she can defend herself in the SEC action, the civil class action, and in the criminal matter." A copy of her Original Petition can be found here.

Ms .Pendergast-Holt seeks a judicial declaration of coverage. Arguing that she has no way of satisfying any self-insured retention, she also seeks a "declaration that any self-insured retention or deductible be waived, held inapplicable or enjoined." She also alleges breach of contract and bad faith. She seeks damages estimated to exceed $5 million, as well as punitive damages estimated to exceed $40 million.

The bases on which the insurer has declined coverage for Ms. Pendergast-Holt’s defense are not specified in her Original Petition. While the scandal surrounding Stanford Group is notorious, as yet there have been no verdicts and no guilty pleas, nor to my knowledge have there even been any admissions. Whatever the facts ultimately prove to be, nothing has as yet been determined. These considerations may prove relevant to the coverage dispute, for example, with respect to the potential applicability of policy exclusions. On the other hand, representations made in connection with Stanford’s policy application (particularly with respect to Stanford’s finances) may also figure into the insurer’s coverage position.

A March 18, 2009 AmLaw Daily post regarding the coverage lawsuit can be found here. Hat tip to the Courthouse News Service (here) for a copy of the Original Petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In prior posts (here and here), I discussed two recent decisions in which courts held that D&O insurance coverage was precluded for settlements the insureds entered without first obtaining the insurers’ consent as required under the applicable policies. An August 19, 2008 Second Circuit opinion (here) addressed the related question of what happens when the insured seeks but the insurer withholds settlement consent.

Based on the somewhat strained circumstances involved, the Second Circuit affirmed a jury verdict holding two excess carriers liable under their policies to fund their portion of a settlement, even though the insured had requested settlement consent on a Sunday evening at 10:00 PM and givn the carriers only eleven hours to respond.

Background

The underlying claim arose out of the Globalstar Telecommunications securities litigation (about which refer here). After the corporate defendants sought bankruptcy protection, the case went forward solely as to Globalstar’s former CEO, Bernard Schwartz. There were various pretrial mediation and settlement conferences, but the case did not settle and proceeded to trial.

The first four layers of Globalstar’s D&O insurance program consisted of a primary $10 million layer and three successive excess layers of $5 million each. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs’ latest settlement demand was $15 million. The primary insurer’s last pretrial settlement offer was $5 million. The plaintiffs reportedly warned that once trial began, their demand would rise to $20 to $25 million.

After two weeks of trial and on the day before he was scheduled to testify, Schwartz agreed to a $20 million settlement. Schwartz’s defense counsel sought the insurers’ consent to enter into the settlement. The request for consent was sent via email on a Sunday night at 10:00 pm. According to the Second Circuit’s later opinion, Schwartz’s defense counsel "offered to discuss the reasonableness of that figure later than night or between 8:45 am and 9:00 am on Monday." Over the next few days, all four insurers refused to consent. The court entered judgment approving the settlement. Schwartz later funded the $20 million settlement with a personal check.

The Coverage Litigation 

Schwartz then sued the four insurers. Schwartz sued the primary carrier for bad faith refusal to settle and for breach of contract. Schwartz sued the three excess carriers for breach of contract. (The third layer excess carrier was involved because at the time Schwartz agreed to settle the case, defense fees had eroded the first $3 million of the primary policy, so the $20 million settlement implicated the third layer excess policy.) The second and third layer excess insurers also cross claimed against the primary insurer alleging bad faith, on the theory that as excess insurers they were equitably subrogated to Schwartz’s bad faith claims against the primary insurer.

Before the coverage lawsuit went to trial, both the primary insurer and the first level excess insurer settled with Schwartz by paying their full policy limits. The coverage trial went forward on Schwarz’s claims against the second and third level excess insurers, and on these two excess insurers’ cross claims against the primary insurer.

Following trial, the jury found in favor of Schwartz and awarded damages of $5 million against the second level excess insurer, and $4 million against the third level excess insurer (the full amount that Schwartz had sought).

On the excess insurers’ cross claims against the primary insurer, the jury awarded the second level excess insurer damages of $2 million and the third level excess insurer damages of $3 million. However, the jury also specifically found that the primary insurer had not acted in "gross disregard" of Schwartz’s rights. In a post-trial ruling, the district court dismissed the excess insurers’ cross claims, holding that New York law applied to the cross claims and that under New York law there could be no recovery for bad faith in the absence of a finding of "gross disregard."

The Second Circuit Opinion 

On appeal, the excess insurers argued "Schwartz’s failure to satisfy the condition precedent of consent to settlement absolved them of their contractual duties." The excess insurers contended that Schwartz’s settlement request "gave them mere hours (over a Sunday night and Monday morning) to decide whether to settle." The Second Circuit characterized these arguments as contending that the 11-hour period represented "the interval in which the Excess Insurers had to assess – for the first time – the risks, opportunities and settlement demands at play."

The Second Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, said that "the insurers’ opportunity to consider settlement extended over a prolonged course of consultation, monitoring and negotiation, so that the settlement was in the nature of anticlimax rather than surprise." The Second Circuit found the jury appropriately considered this evidence and concluded that the excess insurers "had an adequate opportunity to consider and evaluate the settlement opportunities; that $20 million was a reasonable sum; and that [the excess insurers] unreasonably withheld consent." The Second Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in Schwartz’s favor.

The Second Circuit also rejected the excess insurers’ argument that the trial court inappropriately applied New York law to the excess insurers’ equitably subrogated bad faith claims against the primary insurer.(Under New York law, but not under California law, a finding of "gross disregard" is required to support the imposition of bad faith liability.) Among other things, the excess insurers argued that it was not appropriate to apply California law to Schwartz’s breach of contract claims but New York law to their equitably subrogated bad faith claims.

The Second Circuit found that applicable choice of law principles allowed different jurisdictions’ laws to apply to different aspects of the same dispute. The Second Circuit also rejected the excess insurers’ argument that application of different law to their cross-claims inappropriately deprived them of the same right of recovery as the person to whom they were equitably subrogated.

Discussion 

The most critical fact in these strained circumstances may be that in the absence of the insurers’ consent Schwartz accepted personal liability for the settlement and funded it out of his own assets. That step substantially undercut the insurers’ ability to argue that the settlement amount was unreasonable, and by extension that their withholding of consent was reasonable.

These circumstances nevertheless present some very troublesome aspects. One particularly questionable part is the settlement consent request that was presented in an email at 10 pm on a Sunday evening with an 11-hour response time. However one might characterize this communication, it was hardly calculated to provide the insurers with what most people would consider a reasonable opportunity to consider the request and respond.

In seemingly overlooking the unorthodox nature of these communications, the Second Circuit placed great weight on the excess insurers’ prior attendance at mediation and settlement conferences, and at trial. During these proceedings there were opportunities to settle the case for $15 million. To be sure, the plaintiffs had indicated that the settlement demand would rise once trial started. The second and third level excess insurers had demanded that the primary and first level excess insurers settle the case for the $15 million amount. Had the case settled for that amount, the second level insurer would only have paid a portion of its limits and the third level excess insurer’s limit would not have been implicated at all.

Under these circumstances it seems that what this case really was about was the question of who ought bear the costs of the $20 million settlement. In that regard, it is significant to note that the jury specifically awarded substantial damages in favor of the second and third level excess insurers against the primary insurer, notwithstanding the jury’s finding that the primary insurer had not acted in "gross disregard" of Schwartz’s interests.

The amount of the cross claim awards seems to be explained by the fact that at the time of the settlment, the first $3 milion of the primary policy had been eroded by defense expense. The sum of the $7 million remaining on the primary policy, the $5 million under the first level excess policy, and the first $3 million of the second level excess policy collectively represented the $15 million amount at which the case could have been settled before trial. The jury shifted to the primary insurer responsibiltiy for the incremental $5 million difference between the $15 million for which the case could have been settled before trial and the $20 million for which it actually settled, by awarding damages of $2 million to the second level excess insurer and $3 million to the third level excess insurer.

However, the trial court negated these cross claim damage award in its post-trial choice of law decision, which the Second Circuit affirmed. I am insufficiently steeped in "decapage" and other rarified choice of law principles to have any informed opinion about the merits of the Second Circuit’s analysis of the law to be applied to excess insurers’ cross claims. The excess insurers undoubtedly are frustrated that they were found liable to Schwarz (to whom they were equitably subrogated) under California law, but that the primary insurer was not liable to them (despite the jury verdict in their favor on the cross claims) because New York law rather than California law applied to their cross claims.

The net effect is that the excess insurers are left holding the responsibility for amounts that the jury assigned to the primary carrier. The primary insurer of course would that in the absence of a finding of "gross disregard" it would be inappropriate for it to have to bear liability for these amounts.

In the end, the outcome of this case may be best understood as the result of the strained circumstances. It should probably be emphasized that demanding insurer consent on a Sunday evening with an 11-hour deadline does not, shall we say, represent an advisable approach. Of course there may be sufficiently pressing circumstances (including, it should be noted, during the constraints of trial) where rushed communications may be unavoidable. But in general, complete, timely and business-like communications are to be preferred, and are likelier to avoid disputes with the carrier.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a link to the Second Circuit opinion.

When Introducing Her, McCain Did Say Something Like "And Now For Something Completely Different": Prior to this past Friday, the only person I had every heard of with the last name of "Palin" was Michael Palin, of Monty Python fame.

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

A June 18, 2008 opinion (here) by Judge Gerald Lynch in the coverage litigation between former Refco directors and officers and one of the company’s excess D&O insurers presents a veritable conflagration of policy application issues, including perennial questions concerning warranties, severability, and imputation, as well as a host of related issues arising from the policy procurement process itself.

Background: In the year preceding Refco’s ill-fated August 2005 IPO, Refco had maintained a $30 million D&O liability insurance program (the 2004-2005 program). In connection with its IPO, Refco obtained a total of $70 million of D&O insurance for the period from August 11, 2005 to August 11, 2006 (the 2005-2006 program). Both programs were arranged in multiple layers, with a primary carrier and several excess carriers.

In connection with placement of the 2004-2005 program, Refco completed the primary carrier’s insurance application (the “Application”). In addition, one of the excess insurers (and the ultimate litigant in the coverage dispute) required that the company submit a Warranty Letter on behalf of all insureds, affirming that no person for whom the insurance was proposed is “cognizant of any fact, circumstance, situation, act, error or omissions which … might afford grounds for any Claim.”

The Warranty Letter, submitted to the excess carrier on January 21, 2005, was signed by Phillip Bennett, Refco’s CEO. It later was revealed that Refco had an undisclosed $430 million receivable due from an entity Bennett controlled. The company subsequently collapsed, and Bennett, among other has pled guilty to an array of criminal offenses.  

At least as appears from the June 18 opinion, there were no additional applications or warranties in connection with the placement of the 2005-2006 program.

Following Refco’s October 2005 collapse, the company’s directors and officers were the target of extensive litigation, for which they sought defense expense coverage under the 2005-2006 program. The primary and first layer excess carriers advanced their entire limits (totaling $17.5 million) in payment of defense expense, subject to repayment of it is determined that there is no coverage under the policies.

The Coverage Denial:

The second level excess insurer, by letter dated March 6, 2006, denied coverage for the claims under its 2005-2006 policies. As the basis for its denial, the second level excess insurer relied on the representations in the Warranty letter and Refco’s failure to answer question 12(b) on the primary carrier’s Application (which asked whether any proposed insured was “aware of any fact, circumstance or situation” that might give rise to a claim).

The second level excess insurer also relied on a “Knowledge Exclusion” that was included in the insurer’s policy when issued in March 2006 (which was at or about the same time as the insurer issue its coverage denial). The Knowledge Exclusion essentially provides that the second level excess insurer is not liable for any loss (including defense expense) “in connection with any claim arising out of, based upon or attributable to any claim, fact or circumstance disclosed or required to be disclosed” in Question 12(b) of the Application.

The Coverage Litigation:

In May 2007, the second level excess insurer initiated an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court seeking a judicial declaration of noncoverage under its 2005-2006 policy, largely for reasons enumerated in its March 2006 denial letter. Several of the individual Refco officers and directors filed an answer and counterclaim, among other things seeking an injunction compelling the second level insurer to advance defense fees. The bankruptcy court entered an order in October 2007 requiring the insurer to advance defense expense, which the insurer has now done, as a result of which its $10 million limit is now depleted.

The second level excess carrier refilled its declaratory judgment complaint in federal district court, again seeking a judicial declaration of noncoverage. The individuals refilled their counterclaims, seeking a determination of coverage. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were the subject of the June 18 opinion.

The June 18 Opinion

In reviewing the court’s rulings, it is important to note that the summary judgment motions were filed pre-discovery. This unusual procedural posture was a critical factor in the court’s decisions process, as the court, pursuant to established authority, was reluctant to interject merits-based rulings where further discovery might provide additional factual context.

The insureds argued that the Warranty Letter had been submitted in connection with the placement of the 2004-2005 program and therefore was not a part of the second level carrier’s 2005-2006 policy. The insurer for its part argued that the Warranty Letter did relate to the placement of the 2005-2006 policy and that in any event it relied on the Warranty Letter when making underwriting decisions in connection with the 2005-2006 policy. The insurer submitted an affidavit from its underwriter in support of its assertions. Judge Lynch concluded that “genuine issues of material fact abound as to whether the Warranty Letter is properly part of the 2005-2006 [policy].”

The insureds further argued that in any event, the applicable “severability provision” bars the insurer from imputing Bennett’s knowledge to the other insureds and therefore the Warranty Letter could not serve as a basis to deny coverage to them. The severability provision was contained in an Endorsement to the Primary Policy. The insurer argued that the severability provision restricted the imputation of knowledge exclusively to statements in the primary insurer’s Application, and therefore it had no bearing on the second level excess insurer’s ability to rely on the Warranty Letter, which was not part of the Application. Judge Lynch agreed, and he therefore denied the insureds’ summary judgment motion based on the application severability provision.

Judge Lynch similarly rejected the second level excess insurer’s attempt to rely on Bennett’s failure Question 12(b) on the Application. Judge Lynch found that the insurer’s issuance of its 2005-2006 policy without challenging the omission of an answer to Question 12(b) was a waiver of any objection to coverage on that basis.

With respect to the second level excess carrier’s attempt to rely on the so-called Knowledge Exclusion to deny coverage, the insureds argued that the insurer’s coverage binder had not listed the Knowledge Exclusion as an endorsement that was to be added to the policy, nor had the company’s broker authorized the addition of the Knowledge Exclusion. The insureds argued that the insurer had “unilaterally changed the terms of the 2005-2006 [policy] after learning of the events that would give rise to a claim.”

The insurer countered that the company’s broker had authorized the addition of the exclusion. The insureds contended this response “fundamentally misconstrues” the meaning of the broker’s communications. These arguments clearly reflect the detailed particulars and disputed meaning of communications between the broker and the underwriter, which Judge Lynch found suffices to raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the issue.

The insureds further arged that the severability of exclusions language in the primary policy precluded application of the Knowledge Exclusion to them. They argued that even if Bennett’s knowledge triggered the exclusion, the excluded state of mind could not be imputed to them. Judge Lynch found that the severability of exclusions provision in the primary policy applied only to the exclusions in the primary policy, and not to the Knowledge Exclusion which was found only in the second level excess insurer’s policy.

Discussion:

The court’s opinion does not represent a definitive conclusion either for or against coverage under the policy. Indeed, at its most basic level, the court’s opinion merely represents a determination to allow discovery as a prelude to a later merits-based determination.

But the opinion raises too many questions about the potential availability to insurers of coverage defenses, and about the limitations of insureds’ policy protections, for the opinion not to raise a host of concerns. The concerns fall into two basic categories – that is, the concerns that are substantive and the concerns that are procedural.

The substantive concerns are numerous and relate to many of highest profile issues in the D&O insurance arena, including the use, applicability and duration of warranties and warranty letters; the extent of protection afforded to “innocent insureds” by severability provisions (including both application severability and exclusion severability); and the extent to which insureds may (or may not) be able rely on policy protections in the primary policy to preclude the assertion of policy defenses by an excess insurer.

The procedural concerns are perhaps equally significant for practitioners in the field. Judge Lynch’s opinion underscores the potential importance of communications between broker and underwriter and is a reminder of the opportunities for and dangers of ambiguities in communications (or, as the insureds would argue, supposed ambiguities). Perhaps these issues will get sorted out in later decisions in the case, but current state of play in the case raises troubling concerns about the pitfalls of the policy procurement process while providing little guidance (except by negative inference) about how those pitfalls might be avoided in the future.

There may yet be further ruling in the case that will clarify the issues. But the opinion nevertheless highlights that many of the issues the industry has been struggling with for the last decade – including in particular severability and imputation issues – remain very much alive and continue to pose significant concerns, and indeed may have edges that have not previously been addressed or even contemplated.

Two final observations about the case. The first is that the parties appear to have exhausted at least $27.5 million of the $70 million tower on defense expense alone, which is yet another reminder of the extraordinary expense involved in catastrophic type claims (a topic I discussed in a recent post, here).

The other observation is that yet again a critical D&O coverage decision has arisen in a case involving defenses raised by a follow-form excess insurer (see my prior comments on this issue here). The issues involved here underscore the myriad of difficulties that potentially can arise as losses escalate through a multilayer program. I do not mean to suggest any views one way or the other about the merits of the excess carrier’s positions in this case. Indeed, given the circumstances involved in this claim, it is unsurprising that the insurers might raise questions. Nevertheless, the specific issues in dispute suggest a level of flex in the interplay between the primary and excess layers that many policyholders would find disconcerting.

Special thanks to Michael Early for sending along a copy of the opinion. I hasten to add that the views and opinions expressed in this post are exclusively my own.

My recent post discussing whether Phillip Bennett's use of the D&O insurance proceeds was an appropriate factor in his criminal sentencing can be found here. My prior post regarding the D&O insurance implications of Bennett's cooperation with the class action plaintiffs can be found here.

What Awaits Those Who Spurn Berkshire: A June 25, 2008 Bloomberg article (here) reports that while recently addressing a group of Toronto business executives, Warren Buffett was asked what makes people want to sell their companies to Berkshire. Buffett reportedly said that he tells a prospective seller to think of their company as a work of art:

You can sell it to Berkshire and we’ll put it in the Metropolitan Museum; it’ll have a wing all by itself; it’ll be there forever. Or you can sell it to some porn shop operator, and he’ll take the painting and he’ll make the boobs a little bigger and he’ll stick it in the window, and some other guy will come along in a raincoat, and he’ll buy it.

And Finally: If you have not yet seen this amazing catch by the Fresno Grizzlies’ ball girl, you have to watch this video. It is truly marvelous. [UPDATE: I have to add that a reader advised me that the video may be a hoax, refer here -- alas. It is still an awsome video.]

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

One of the standard provisions of the typical D & O insurance policy is a clause requiring the insurer’s prior consent to settlement. This clause can be the source of tension between carriers and policyholders, and policyholders and their counsel sometimes view the clause as little more than an impediment. However, a March 13, 2008 opinion (here), the New York Court of Appeals makes it clear that policyholders who disregard the settlement consent requirements do so at peril to coverage under the D & O policy.

The insurance coverage dispute in the case arose out of the securities analyst/conflict of interest investigation that unfolded earlier in this decade. Among the investment banks targeted in investigation was Bear Stearns. On December 20, 2002, Bear Stearns entered a settlement in principle with the regulators in which it agreed to pay a total of $80 million, with $25 million allocated as a penalty, $25 million in disgorgements, $25 million for independent research, and $5 million for investor education.

On April 21, 2003, Bear Stearns executed a consent agreement in which it acceded to the entry of final judgment in the SEC’s pending enforcement proceeding. Bear Stearns also agreed to payment of the $80 million and explicitly agreed not to seek insurance coverage for the $25 million penalty.

Three days after executing the settlement agreement, Bear Stearns sent letters to its D & O carriers requesting the carriers’ consent to the settlement. Bear Stearns sought coverage for $45 million of the settlement (which represented the settlement amount, excluding the penalty, in excess of the policy’s $10 million self-insured retention). The insurers disclaimed coverage and initiated a declaratory judgment action.

In October 2003, the federal court presiding over the regulatory enforcement action entered judgment on the terms to which Bearn Stearns previously had agreed.

The insurers disputed coverage on a number of grounds, but because the Court of Appeals opinion addresses only the consent to settlement issue, that is the sole issue I discuss in this post.

Bear Stearns’ primary D & O insurance policy had a provision specifying that:

The Insured agrees not to settle any Claim, incur any Defense Costs or otherwise assume any contractual obligation or admit any liability with respect to any Claim in excessof a settlement authority threshold of $5,000,000 without the Insurer's consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld . . . The insurer shall not be liable for any settlement, Defense Costs, assumed obligation or admission to which it has not consented.

The New York Supreme Court (trial court) found that triable issues of fact existed whether Bear Stearns breached the consent to settlement clause. The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s opinion in certain other respects, but affirmed the Supreme Court on the consent to settlement issue. The Appellate Division then certified the case to the New York Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by Justice Victoria A. Graffeo, held that “Bear Stearns breached [the consent] provision when it executed the April 2003 consent agreement before notifying the insurers or obtaining their approval.” The Court of Appeals said that it was “unpersuaded by the contention that a triable issue of fact exists because the federal court did not approve the settlement until it entered a final judgment in October 2003.”

Judge Graffeo specifically noted that

As a sophisticated business entity, Bear Stearns expressly agreed that the insurers would "not be liable" for any settlement in excess of $5 million entered into without their consent. Aware of this contingency in the policies, Bear Stearns nevertheless elected to finalize all outstanding settlement issues and executed a consent agreement before informing its carriers of the terms of the settlement. Bear Stearns therefore may not recover the settlement proceeds from the insurers.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Court and granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. Because of its ruling on the consent provision, the Court of Appeals did not reach the other issues on which the carriers disclaimed coverage.

There may well have been additional grounds that could also have precluded coverage here, but it is still an arresting development – and a cautionary tale – that the Court of Appeals precluded coverage altogether based solely on the failure to obtain advance consent to settlement. Significantly, the Court of Appeals enforced the consent provision without superimposing any requirement for the insurer to show that it was prejudiced in any way by the failure to obtain consent. The Court of Appeals focused strictly on the policy’s language.

Companies and their counsel sometimes regard the consent settlement requirement as if the language were merely precatory, or perhaps even as optional if they believe settlement circumstances suggest the need to press ahead without bringing the carrier into the loop. It is not an unprecedented development for a carrier to learn of a settlement only after the fact. But the Bear Stearns opinion provides unambiguous notice to companies and counsel that they disregard the policy’s advance consent requirement at peril of precluding coverage.

The larger lesson here is that the carrier should be kept in the loop. Indeed, the better practice, the one likeliest to produce the best claim outcomes, is for companies and their counsel to treat the carrier as a collaborative partner in the claims process. While there are unfortunate situations where the carrier does not respond appropriately, even in those situations the policyholder will be better off (for example, before a court if coverage litigation ensures) if the policyholder has consistently maintained professional and timely communications with the carrier.

And whatever else may be said, it is clear, at least in New York, that the D & O policy provision requiring the carrier’s advance consent to settlement means what it says, and policyholders should take care to comply with its requirements.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the New York Court of Appeals opinion.

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