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

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.]

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Last week, Towers Perrin released its report of the firm’s 2007 Survey of Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Purchasing Trends, which can be accessed here. The firm’s annual survey report is widely read throughout the D&O insurance industry, and is generally viewed as an important information resource. Every year, the survey report is full of interesting observations, and this year’s version is no exception. The report merits reading at length and in full.

But while the survey report is widely read, I don’t know if the survey’s limitations are always fully understood or appreciated.

The report itself expressly acknowledges that it is based on a “self-selecting non-probability sample” The significance of this fact is briefly explained in the final two sentences at the bottom of the report’s preface page, where the report states that:

A non-probability sample is one in which respondents choose – or are selected – to participate. Such a sample is therefore not random. Because not all potential respondents are equally likely to participate, survey biases must be considered when interpreting results.

It is this latter point – that is, that “survey biases” must be considered when interpreting the survey’s results – that is all too often overlooked when the survey’s results are cited.

Let me just say that in referring to “bias” here, I am not in any way criticizing the report or its authors. The word “bias” as commonly understood has a negative connotation, but in this context, the word bias simply represents a mathematical property. But while the word bias should not suggest any negative connotations here, it should also be understood that, as stated in Wikipedia (here), “a biased sample causes problems because any statistic computed from that sample has the potential to be consistently erroneous.”

The survey results that most clearly reflect the sample bias are in the report’s discussion of what it calls “broker rankings.” As a footnote makes clear, the table relates solely to retail brokers, and does not contain any information about wholesale brokers. But even with respect to retail brokers, the table on which the “ranking” is based shows that over 88% of the survey responses relate to just four brokerages. Nor are these four survey-dominant brokerages the nationwide industry giants – to the contrary, these four participants would more accurately be described as strong regional players with an important presence in their respective geographic regions. The three largest nationwide industry giants meanwhile are represented collectively in only about 1.2% of responses.

My observations here should not in any way be taken as a criticism of these four survey-predominating brokerages. I will stipulate that they are in fact strong and significant industry participants. But no informed person actually thinks they are the four largest D&O brokers in the country. They are undeniably the leading firms in getting their clients to complete the Towers Perrin survey. Again, no criticism here; I salute their enterprising spirit in achieving this result. However, no one should confuse the survey “ranking” with an actual market share ranking.

I emphasize this aspect of the survey report because the bias in the broker participation population has pervasive effects throughout the entire report. For example, the four survey-predominant brokerages all have portfolios that are heavily weighted toward the technology and life sciences industries. Not too surprisingly, therefore, the two industry groups most heavily represented among both public and private company survey participants are “Technology” and “Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals.” These two industry groups together represent about half of both public and private company survey participants.

Obviously, this heavy concentration of survey participants in just these two industry groups does not correspond to the economy as a whole. But this industry concentration – which is a direct result of the concentration of the survey population in the portfolios of a small handful of brokerages – has very significant ramifications for the report’s other findings. The report itself expressly recognizes this in the portion where it discusses the distribution of survey respondents’ primary insurance among the various leading carriers. The report's analysis recognizes that the distribution of primary insurers is directly affected by the industry distribution, and the report examines this effect in detail.

But while the report examines in the impact of the survey population industry distribution on the distribution of business among primary insurers, the report does not elsewhere make this analysis. For example, the report does not similarly consider whether or not the industry concentration is relevant to the distribution of business among excess carriers, nor does it consider the possible impact of the concentration of the survey population on the other findings in the report.

I emphasize these points because I think they show a couple of important things. First, not only is the survey population concentrated into the portfolios of just a small handful of brokers, but this concentration has important implications for the rest of the report. It clearly affects, for example, the industry concentration of the survey population, which in turn affects the reported distribution of primary insurance among the various carriers.

These apparent effects raise the question whether the concentration of the survey population has similar effects on the other areas examined in the survey report. While the impact of the population concentration is most self-evident in the industry distribution, it is more difficult to tell from the report whether the other components of the report’s findings are similarly affected by the survey population’s concentration in the portfolios of just a very small handful of brokers.

It is a fair observation that Towers Perrin makes survey involvement available to all industry participants, not just the four survey-predominant firms. It is also a fair observation that if survey involvement were more widespread, many of the concerns noted above might be alleviated. But what has happened is that a few brokerage firms have clearly made their clients’ participation in the survey a top priority, while other brokerage firms have obviously decided to take a different approach, for reasons that one might speculate are related.

None of this is meant as a criticism of Towers Perrin, which should be saluted for performing the survey and distributing the survey report without charge. Moreover, Towers Perrin itself acknowledges that there may be biases arising from the survey population distribution. So I don’t mean to criticize Towers Perrin, or anyone else for that matter. Rather, my analysis here is presented as a petition to all industry participants that in using the survey data, they should explicitly recognize and acknowledge the sample bias limitations inherent in the report. In particular, no one should try to make the survey results represent anything more than they actually do, particularly with respect to the concentrations noted above.

The Option Backdating Case Resolution Scorecard: Over at the Securities Litigation Watch, Adam Savett has prepared an updated options backdating case resolution scorecard, which can be accessed here. Savett has a number of interesting observations about case dismissals and the speed of case resolution. The D&O Diary’s own scorecard of options backdating lawsuit dismissals, denials and settlement can be accessed here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a prior post (here), I commented on former Refco CEO Phillip Bennett’s extraordinary cooperation with the Refco class action plaintiffs, following his entry of a guilty plea in the criminal case against him. As might have been anticipated, Bennett is hoping that his cooperation with the class plaintiffs, as well as the Bankruptcy Trustee, will win him leniency in his June 19, 2008 criminal sentencing. The government opposes leniency, arguing in reliance upon, among other things, Bennett’s acceptance of D&O insurance proceeds to pay his defense expenses.

In February 2008, Bennett entered a guilty plea, without a plea agreement, to all 20 counts against him, including conspiracy, securities fraud, filing of false statements, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering and lying to Refco’s auditors. He faces a statutory maximum of 315 years’ imprisonment.

In Bennett’s June 1, 2008 sentencing memorandum (here), which was made public on June 12, his lawyers urged the judge to impose a sentence “for a term of years well short of the remainder of Mr. Bennett’s life.” His lawyers cited, among other reasons supposedly warranting leniency, that Bennett has “offered his cooperation to both the Litigation Trustee of the Refco Estate and the Refco Civil Class Action Plaintiffs, in their efforts to return hundreds of dollars to those who lost money in the Refco bankruptcy.” His lawyers further argued that his cooperation in those cases is “an indication of the extent to which Mr. Bennett has sought to make amends for the harm he has caused, and further reason to impose a sentence well below an actual or de facto term of life in prison.”

In its June 6, 2008 response (here), also made public on June 12, the government urged that “given the duration and intensity of the fraud, Bennett should receive no leniency.” In urging the maximum, the government pulled out all rhetorical stops; the government argued:

Bennett’s willful frauds on Refco’s investors, purchasers, customers, counterparties, banks, the public and others resulted in countless victims being defrauded of billions of dollars, causing uncompensated losses, even after the dissolution of Refco’s assets and large legal settlements of well over $1.5 billion, and of course drove Refco into bankruptcy. The defendant’s criminal conduct, motivated by greed that drove him to lie and scheme in ways previously unimaginable, brought him wealth that has scarcely been seen before in a … fraud case, launching Bennett into the rarefied air of a billionaire. In terms of scope, length, sophistication, harm, and criminal benefit, Bennett stands on a plateau of criminality that frankly makes comparisons difficult. Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that an appropriately stiff term of imprisonment, consistent with the sentences imposed in the similar cases discussed above, should be imposed in order to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just and fair punishment, and deter potential corporate criminals.

In this same vein, the government showed little respect for Bennett’s plea for leniency made in reliance on his cooperation with the civil claimants (or at least “some” of the civil claimants, as the government emphasizes). The government said only that while the Court is not prohibited from considering such putative cooperation, “that does not mean that the Court necessarily should give the defendant credit for such cooperation.”

Among other reasons why it contends Bennett should received no leniency, the government specifically argued that “rather than limit the impact of his fraud, he knowingly accepted millions of dollars from Refco’s directors and officers insurance (the premiums for which, of course, were paid with fraud proceeds) to pay his legal bills, money that Bennett knew he had no right to claim.” The government added in a footnote that Bennett was also aware that in light of the government’s asset forfeiture case “there would be no money left to repay the insurance company upon his conviction. In substance, at the same time that Bennett was supposedly accepting full responsibility for his actions, he was in fact, taking millions of dollars from insurance companies under false pretenses. Notably, Bennett has not offered to cooperate with these civil litigants.”

Bennett may well deserve the maximum sentence as a result of his wrongdoing. The government may persuasively argue that Bennett only belatedly acknowledged his guilt, and that his late-arriving contrition ought not to be the basis of leniency, particularly where the delay exacerbated the harm he caused. But I wonder about the government’s attempt to bootstrap this argument by citing Bennett’s use of the D&O insurance proceeds to finance his defense.  

Let me just say as a preliminary matter that in expressing the views below, I am expressing no opinions about the carriers’ rights or interests. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Refco’s D&O insurance coverage and none of the opinions below should be taken as opinion about Refco’s carriers’ coverage positions in this case. The carriers certainly  have their own grievances based on these circumstances, but I am not addressing those grievances here.  My opinions here relate solely to the government’s arguments against leniency based on Bennett’s use of the D&O policy proceeds.

My first concern with the government’s argument is the general principle it represents. The government may be justified in arguing that Bennett knew all along that his conduct was fraudulent. But take the principle on which the government seeks to rely outside the context of this specific case. Defending against a criminal charge is extraordinarily expensive, and one of the purposes of D&O insurance is to provide for the advancement of post-indictment criminal defense expense. For many criminally accused corporate officials, particularly those whose former company is bankrupt, the D&O insurance may be their only means of defending themselves. An insured forced to rely on this last line of defense should not be have to be concerned that accepting these contractual rights will put them at hazard that it might later be used against them if they ultimately face a criminal sentencing.

My second concern is that the circumstances Bennett’s case presents arguably are a product of the structure of D&O policies. The policies of course preclude coverage for loss based on criminal misconduct. But at the same time, the policies provide for the advancement of post-indictment criminal defense expense, subject only to an unsecured obligation to repay in the event a coverage preclusion is triggered.

In the course of events, it is inevitable that some insurance proceeds will be advanced in defense of insureds whose guilt is later established. The carrier can then seek to recover the advanced expense, which the insured is obliged to repay. But as an unsecured creditor, the carrier may not be able to recoup its costs in many instances. Bennett may well have known he would never be able to repay the amounts advanced, but I suspect that most criminal defendants know that, if called upon, they too could never hope to repay the amounts advanced in their defense. If awareness of an inability to repay is bar to seeking leniency, the ability to seek leniency would be unavailable to many corporate criminal defendants.

Carriers could refuse to cover criminal defense expenses or require more security before advancing criminal defense expense. Of course, any carrier trying to do either of these things would sell no more policies. D&O policies are structured as they are because that is what the marketplace requires for the policies to be commercially competitive. Presumably the carriers believe they are adequately compensated for the risks inherent in the structure.

The government may well be justified overall in arguing that Bennett should receive the maximum sentence. But I wonder: should an insurance outcome made possible as a result of the requirements of commercial competition really serve as a factor in the length of someone’s criminal sentence?

I suspect that some readers may have strong views on this topic. I hope readers will be willing to publish their views using the blog’s comment feature.

Hat tip to the White Collar Crime Prof Blog (here) for the links to the sentencing memoranda.

Speakers’ Corner: On June 17, 2008, I will be in Quebec City at the spring meeting of the Casualty Actuarial Society, speaking on a panel entitled “Subprime Issues for D&O.” The conference sessions agenda can be found here. My fellow panelists include Stephanie Plancich of NERA Economic Consulting and David Bradford of Advisen.

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)

For many companies, one of the hardest parts of the D&O insurance transaction is determining how much insurance to buy. Against a backdrop of basic affordability, the company must consider complex issues of limits adequacy – that is, how much insurance is “enough”? These issues are even more fraught in a time of generally rising claims severity (about which, refer here).

As discussed below, recent developments in one current claim underscore the fact that in addition to rising settlement levels, escalating defense expense is an increasingly important part of the limits adequacy equation. In addition, these recent developments also demonstrate that many related issues should also weigh into the limits adequacy analysis, and these same issues also have important implications for the structure of the insurance program, as well.

University of Denver Law Professor J. Robert Brown, Jr. has a post today (here) on his indispensable blog, The Race to the Bottom, discussing developments involving Paul Barnaba, a former employee of bankrupt auto parts supplier Collins & Aikman. Barnaba is caught up in the criminal case involving David Stockman, the former head of the OMB under Ronald Reagan, who was C&A’s CEO from 2001, when Stockman’s private equity fund took control of C&A, until shortly before the company’s 2005 bankruptcy. Barnaba is described in the indictment as “employed by the purchasing department” and identified as Director of Financial Analysis and eventually Director and Vice President of Purchasing for the Plastics Division. Background regarding the criminal prosecution can be found here.

As Professor Brown explained in an earlier post (here), Barnaba has moved to sever his criminal case from the other criminal defendants and to set the case for an early trial date. Barnaba asserts that, due to his indictment, he faces overwhelming personal and professional difficulties. He also argues that the protracted criminal proceedings threaten him with financial ruin, and he contends further that the proceeds of the applicable D&O policy “are quickly dwindling.”

The government opposed Barnaba’s motion, arguing among other things that Barnaba’s concerns about the dwindling D&O insurance are “wholly speculative and unsubstantiated.”

In his Reply to the government’s opposition, Barnaba vigorously disagrees with the government’s attempt to belittle his concerns about the dwindling D&O policy. His Reply explains that Collins & Aikman has a $50 million insurance program arranged in four layers. This insurance “provides coverage to a wide variety of former Collins & Aikman executives and employees,” including not only the criminal defendants, but also “those who have been sued or subpoenaed in the civil SEC matter, and those who have been sued or subpoenaed in various class actions and other civil suits.”

Barnaba explains in his Reply that the first $15 million layer of coverage was exhausted on or about June 15, 2007, and the second $15 million layer was exhausted on or about March 31, 2008 (for defense work completed through February 2008). As Barnaba notes, “the second $15 million layer of coverage was exhausted in nine months at a rate of approximately $1.67 million per month” and he adds that the “monthly rate was higher at the end of than at the beginning of this nine-month period.”

In any event, for the defense work completed in March 2008 and later, only $20 million of coverage remains. Barnaba argues that “[a]ssuming a monthly burn rate of $2 million to $3 million, which is realistic and likely conservative, all policy proceeds will be exhausted sometime between mid-September 2008 and December 31, 2008. This is not speculative.”

It is hard not to sympathize with Barnaba’s plight, regardless of the merits of the criminal matter. He has been caught in the maelstrom. The outcome of his motion to sever and to set a trial date remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine a court agreeing to allow a high-profile criminal case like this one to be tried piecemeal. The D&O insurance could well be gone long before the case finally goes to trial.

Separate and apart from the actual merits of Barnaba’s motion are the implications of his plight for the issue of D&O insurance limits adequacy.

The first and most basic point is the importance of defense expense in the limits adequacy analysis. The potential for defense expense to exhaust or substantially deplete the available limits is most obvious in a catastrophic claim like the one involving Collins & Aikman, but even in less catastrophic circumstances, accumulating defense expense can substantially reduce the indemnity protection available even in a large insurance program. And the insurance is supposed to able to respond adequately in all circumstances, even the unlikely event of a catastrophic claim. In considering the requirements that a catastrophic claim can present, it is important to note that the aggregate defense expense related to the Collins & Aikman claim consumed $15 million in just nine months.

The second point is that one of the problems in the Collins & Aikman claim is that so many different people are accessing the policy, for a wide variety of different matters. The potential for the policy limits to drain away through so many different access points is perhaps inherent in the current standard D&O policy structure, in which so many different people are included as “insured persons” and so many different kinds of matters fall within the definition of a covered “claim.”

While this breadth of coverage is generally viewed as a positive thing from the policyholder’s perspective, it has the inherent potential (a potential that is being dramatically realized in the Collins & Aikman claim) for accelerated policy erosion and even depletion. The erosion potential inherent in the breadth of available policy coverage is a consideration that is too infrequently considered in connection with the question of limits adequacy.

Third, the problem Barnaba faces is not just his alone – all of the other “insured persons” are also facing imminent insurance program depletion. Once the available insurance is used up, these individuals will face continued complex litigation without further insurance available to defend or indemnify themselves. Among other things, it could prove difficult and painful for the defendants in the civil lawsuits to extricate themselves without insurance available.

All of that said, the solutions to these problems are not easy. With the benefit of hindsight, it is tempting to argue that the company should have carried higher limits. The fact is that many companies of Collins & Aikman’s pre-catastrophe size (the company had a market capitalization of approximately $500 million a year before it went bankrupt) choose to carry D&O limits lower than the $50 million that Collins & Aikman carried. Many companies are unwilling or unable to buy greater limits.

In the end the analysis comes down to the perennial question of limits adequacy – that is, how much insurance is enough?

In light of the escalating average claims severity, and of the numerous implications from Barnaba’s plight (including the catastrophic potential for defense expense to deplete policy limits), it may be time to rethink commonplace concepts of limits adequacy, because past notions may no longer be sufficient. Average claims severity is increasing. Defense expense does have the catastrophic potential to exhaust policy limits. In addition, new developments, such as the growing opt-out phenomenon (discussed most recently here), pose additional challenges to the traditional limits adequacy analysis.

Increased program limits alone, however, may not solve all of the problems. Indeed, it could be argued that even were higher limits available, they might not adequately protect Barnaba and the other Collins & Aikman defendants. Given the astonishing potential for defense expense to consume available insurance (I mean, $15 million in nine months, for crying out loud), even a substantially larger insurance program than the one Collins & Aikman maintained might prove to be insufficient.

Part of the solution has to be program structure. Clearly, a key reason that the Collins & Aikman program is melting away is that so many different people are accessing it. One way that well-advised corporate officials can ensure they are not left without insurance to protect them as individuals is through supplemental D&O insurance structures dedicated solely to their own protection. These supplemental structures might take any one of a number of different forms, including for example, excess Side A coverage for a specified group of individuals, or even through an individual D&O insurance policy (so-called IDL coverage). While there are a variety of ways this supplemental insurance might be structured, the crisis Barnaba faces underscores the importance of addressing these issues as part of the insurance acquisition process.

One final thought about Barnaba. That is, the typical insurance acquisition process conversation is usually limited to considerations involving the exposures of the most senior corporate officials. The possible exposures of “supporting cast” employees such as Barnaba are usually not a central part of the dialog. For that reason, it is relatively unlikely that the deployment of supplement insurance structures, as important as they are, would do much for someone like Barnaba.

In the end, someone at Barnaba’s level is, in all likelihood, going to be (as in the case of Barnaba himself) dependent on the continued availability of insurance proceeds under the traditional D&O insurance policy. This final point underscores the importance of a thorough review of all considerations involved in the issue of limits adequacy, including in particular the number of persons potentially dependent on the policy for protection. As I noted, it may be time to reconsider traditional notions of limits adequacy, in light of all of these considerations.

Very special thanks to Professor Brown for providing a heads up about his post.

Brocade Settles Options Timing-Related Securities Class Action Lawsuit: According to the company’s June 2, 2008 press release (here), Brocade Communications has reached an agreement to settle the options-backdating related securities class action lawsuit pending against the company and certain of its directors and officers, in exchange for an agreement to pay $160 million. Background regarding the litigation can be found here.

I have added the Brocade settlement to my table of options backdating-related settlements and dismissals, which can be accessed here.

A WSJ.com Law Blog post about the settlement can be found here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the past several weeks, several industry observers and analysts have tried to put a number on the insurance industry's aggregate subprime-related loss exposure. At one end, Bear Stearns on January 24, 2008 estimated the industry's exposure at $8-9 billion (refer here). By contrast, on February 8, 2008, Lehman Brothers estimated (here) that the insurance industry's losses might range up to $3 billion, and on February 6, 2008, Advisen announced (here) that it will be releasing a report estimating that the industry's ultimate losses at $3.6 billion.

I don't envy these experts whose job it is to try to quantify something as big, amorphous and evolving as the subprime-related litigation wave. Nor do I profess to have any particular insight into whose estimate is more accurate or what the ultimate number will be. I do have some observations about some considerations that are or should be being taken into account in making these kinds of estimates, in light of the circumstances surrounding the evolving subprime meltdown. (I should add that in making these observations, I have not had the benefit of reading the entire Advisen report, which as of this writing is not yet available; I have only had an opportunity to review the press release summary.)

In general, I think the various estimates have correctly noted that a potentially large portion of the amounts to be paid in settlements or judgments in the subprime litigation may not represent insured loss. In particular, the observers have correctly noted that many of the largest commercial and investment banks that are involved in the subprime-related litigation carry very large self-insured retentions and also often carry only Side A insurance programs (covering only nonindemnifiable loss, unlikely to occur here for these entities) or in some cases no insurance at all for certain exposures. These various observers have made a number of other valid observations concerning other factors that could restrict the impact of subprime losses for D & O insurers.

But at the same time, it seems to me that there are a number of other considerations that these observers have undervalued or even overlooked in assessing the possible impact of the subprime meltdown on insurers.

First and foremost, I think it is important to stress that we are only at the very earliest stages of the emergence of the subprime-related litigation. To be sure, there are (as documented here) already 43 subprime-related class action lawsuits, as well as nine subprime-related ERISA lawsuits, but before all is said and done, there are going to be many, many more of these and other kinds of lawsuits. We have not even completed the first round of subprime loss truth-telling (refer here), and it is probable that there will be even further deterioration in the mortgages underlying the subprime-backed assets as homeowners find it easier to walk away that to continue to pay down debt on a house that is declining in value (about which refer here).

As Couglin Stoia attorney Sam Rudman observed at last week's PLUS D & O Symposium, there are likely to be more securities class action lawsuits in 2008 than any year since the passage of the PSLRA (Rudman is himself already involved as plaintiffs' counsel on many of the subprime-related lawsuits).The subprime-related litigation wave is likely to continue to emerge well into 2009 and possibly beyond (just as the options backdating litigation wave continues to emerge). The possible extent of this future litigation threat may be discerned from the recent litigation commenced against the Cadawalader firm (about which refer here), in which the allegations relate to commercial mortgage securitization documents the firm prepared in 1997. In other words, any dollar estimate of the possible subprime-related insurance losses should be accompanied by a healthy appreciation of how little of the ultimate amount of subprime-related litigation we can currently even see. Since we still don't know how big of an event this ultimately will be, and because it is likely to be years before we have clear idea, any attempt at quantification should carry some very substantial caveats.

Second, many of these estimates seem to presume that the insurance industry's subprime-related losses will be limited to the financial institutions sector. I do not think this is a conservative assumption. To the contrary, I think it should be assumed that the subprime-related litigation wave will both spread beyond subprime and beyond the financial sector (as I discuss at greater length here). The recent securities class action lawsuits against student loan company SLM Corporation (about which refer here) and Levitt Homes (about which refer here) underscore that the claims have already spread. Bristol Myers Squibb's recent $275 million write-down for subprime-related investment losses (refer here) further highlights that the credit crisis is no longer just about the financial sector. The possibility of further credit-related losses in many sectors outside the financial sector, and for ensuing claims, at this point seems likely -- or at least that would appear to be the conservative assumption.

Third, much of the analysis of the insurance industry's exposure has been concentrated largely (although, it must be recognized, not exclusively) on potential losses for D & O insurers. To be sure, the growing number of subprime-related securities class action lawsuits represents a very substantial threat to the D & O insurance industry. But the potential for insured losses in coverage lines outside of D & O could also be very substantial. By way of illustration, State Street's recent $618 million charge for anticipated subprime-related litigation expenses was in connection with lawsuits that do not (as discussed in my recent post, here) appear to implicate D & O coverage, but that could present significant fiduciary liability or even investment management E & O losses.

By the same token, the recently revised complaint in the subprime-related securities litigation involving Countrywide (about which refer here) added accountant liability claims, as well as claims against Countrywide's offering underwriters. Other professionals undoubtedly will find themselves caught up in subprime related litigation, including, for example, lawyers; hedge fund and pension fund managers; mortgage brokers; appraisers and surveyors; real estate brokers; and insurance agents, among many others. The cumulative losses from claims against other professionals could be very substantial, and at this early stage particularly difficult to prognosticate.

Even with respect to the analysts' breakdown of the likely D & O losses, the breadth of the current and likely future claims may or may not be being fully taken into account. That is, while it is true that some of the lawsuits against the largest financial institutions may not, because of the way that these entities structure their insurance, involve the prospect for insured losses, most of the current and likely future subprime litigation defendants do not have these types of insurance arrangements. As the claims spread to secondary players and targets in the hinterlands (about which refer here), the claims are hitting defendants that have more traditional insurance structures. Those (far more numerous) claims may involved a greater percentage of insured losses than (the relatively few claims, as a percentage matter) against the largest banks and financial institutions.

Fourth, I am well aware that one of the issues with which these analysts have had to grapple is the need to try and put the subprime meltdown into context. The challenge is not just to say how it compares, for example, to the S & L crisis or the bursting of the dotcom bubble, but also to come up with a figure for those prior events in order to compare the current subprime crisis. I don't have data for those prior events, but I do know that the still unfolding options backdating scandal may present a useful comparison. As I have detailed in another post today, the options backdating losses, on the few cases that have been resolved so far, already represent in aggregate some very impressive numbers. There are many more options backdating cases yet to be resolved. The total options backdating related losses are likely to by very substantial. Given that just about everyone assumes that the subprime related crisis represents an even greater threat to insurers than the options backdating scandal, the implication is that the subprime related losses could be very significant indeed.

Fifth, whatever else might be said, nothing meaningful about the extent of the subprime threat can be derived from the D & O insurers' current marketplace behavior. My comment here relates specifically to the comment in the Lehman Brothers report linked above that "if insurers were concerned about suffering multi-billion dollar subprime D & O losses that could spread outside financial institutions sector, the market would tighten significantly." If the D & O industry had a long track record of skillfully adjusting its prices to changing exposures, this remark might have greater validity. Unfortunately, the industry's consistent history suggests that the industry is only capable of disciplining itself when losses become so painful that it is forced to change its ways. The current D & O pricing environment is a reflection only of the amount of available capacity, not of any calibration to emerging exposures. The marketplace will remain competitive until cumulating losses force the changes of necessity, and then any changes would be abrupt and disruptive -- as they have always been in the past.

Sixth, as most of the analysts have noted, the defense expense associated with the subprime cases in and of itself could be staggering. As an example of how expensive these cases can be, Apollo Group recently reported (here) that it had spent $25 million dollars taking the securities lawsuit pending against the company through trial. Because of the legal and factual complexity surrounding the subprime cases, they could be extremely costly to defend. Much of the associated defense expense, other than for the large investment bank defendants, is likely to be covered loss. For each of the securities cases, the defense expenses are likely to be many millions of dollars, and, for the cases in the aggregate (including those already filed and those yet to be filed), to be many hundreds (and possibly thousands) of millions of dollars. To these costs must be added the costs of defending the claims raised against other professionals.

Finally, it would be unfortunate if the subprime hype were to obscure the fact that the subprime-related litigation is only one of several very important current developments affecting D & O insurers' exposure. As I have noted elsewhere (refer here) securities litigation levels would be elevated compared to the prior two years' activity levels even without the subprime-related litigation. The Securities Litigation Watch blog recently noted (here) that January 2008 securities activity remained at elevated levels, only in part because of the subprime related litigation. None of this could be discerned from D & O insurers' current conduct. It has been ever thus.

Blog Warning: This week I hope to be making some long needed adjustments to The D & O Diary. While these changes are taking place, I will not be adding any new blog posts (although the current posts will remain available). These adjustments should result in several improvments to The D & O Diary. I will report further on the adjustments once they have been completed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an earlier post (here), I discussed the March 14 , 2007 ruling (here) in the CNL Resorts case, in which the federal district court held that an issuing company's settlement of a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 did not constitute covered "loss" under the company's D & O liability insurance policy. In that prior case, the court did say that Section 11 settlements are not per se uninsurable, and noted that "in a Section 11 case, if an entity makes a payment that constitutes something other than disgorgement of its ill-gotten gains, it has suffered a loss."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the year-end fast approaching, it is time to take a look back and review the top D & O stories of 2007. It was an eventful year, with some important developments that will have implications for the year ahead, and perhaps for years to come. Here are the top stories, with the year's most important story leading the way.

1. Subprime Meltdown Launches Litigation Wave: When I first started tracking subprime-related litigation in April (here), I already knew that the subprime meltdown was going to be an important story. By July (here), I knew that the subprime story was "this year's model"--that is, the hot litigation trend being driven by the business scandal most prominent at the time. By August, I wrote (here) that the developing story had become "All Subprime, All the Time." But even at that point, I don't think I really appreciated what the subprime story would become. I certainly didn't envision that it would lead to a surge of lawsuits against some of the giants of the financial services world, such as Merrill Lynch (refer here), Citigroup (refer here), Washington Mutual (refer here), and UBS (refer here).

As of year end, my current tally (refer here) of subprime-related lawsuits stands 34; the recently released NERA year-end securities litigation survey (here) put the number at 38. The litigation includes lawsuits against accountants (here), real estate brokers (here), and many others. The securities lawsuits have come not just against the lenders and the investment banks, but home builders, bond insurers, credit rating agencies, mutual funds, and a host of others. Even more ominously, there is an unmistakable sense of foreboding that the worst may lie ahead (refer here). But whatever may actually lie ahead, there is no doubt that the litigation resulting from the subprime meltdown is the 2007 D & O story of the year.

2. Two-Year Lull in Securities Filings Comes to an End: In mid-year 2007 studies, NERA (here) and Cornerstone (here) both observed that securities filings had been well below historical averages since mid-2005. Stanford Law Professor Joseph Grundfest questioned (here) whether or not there might have been a "permanent shift" to a lower level of securities lawsuit filings.

But as I detailed more thoroughly here, and as further documented in NERA's recent 2007 year end survey (here), the two-year lull came to an end in the second half of 2007. Indeed, the 81 securities lawsuits filed during the period between August 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007 represents the highest level of lawsuit filings in a four-month period since June-October 2004, and the 25 new securities lawsuits filed in November 2005 represents the highest monthly total since January 2005.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the fact that the new lawsuit activity is not being driven exclusively by the subprime litigation wave; while the subprime lawsuits collectively represent one important factor, the lawsuits are actually hitting a wide variety of companies for a wide variety of reasons, many having nothing to do with the subprime meltdown. The likelihood of continued financial marketplace volatility suggest that litigation levels may remain elevated for some time to come.

3. Supreme Court Issues Tellabs Decision: The Supreme Court does not take many securities cases; for that reason, and because the Tellabs case had the potential to significantly affect the threshold resolution of many securities cases, the Supreme Court's opinion in the Tellabs case was much anticipated. When the Tellabs opinion finally came out in June 2007, it was a victory for defendants, although perhaps not as extensive a defense victory as it could have been, as detailed further here and here.

The Tellabs opinion reversed the Seventh Circuit's ruling and held, interpreting the securities lawsuit pleading standards described in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, that for an inference that a defendant acted with scienter to be "strong," the inference "must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent." The majority opinion expressly rejected the position urged by concurring Justices Scalia and Alito that "the test should be whether the inference of scienter (if any) is more plausible than the inference of innocence."

While the Tellabs court's more balanced approach seemed less likely to have a dramatic impact on dismissal motions as would the position urged by the concurring justices, the early returns suggest that the Tellabs case has made it more difficult for securities cases to survive a motion to dismiss (as discussed on this post on the 10b5-Daily blog, here). The Tellabs case has, in fact, proven to be an important factor in many of the motions to dismiss in the options backdating cases (about which refer here). The Tellabs decision and the Supreme Court's 2005 opinion in the Dura Pharmaceuticals case are now important tools for defendants to try to use at the motion to dismiss stage in securities class action litigation.

4. Top Plaintiffs' Lawyers Face Criminal Woes: Even a short time ago, who would have thought that the two leading securities plaintiffs' attorneys would face criminal prosecution? Yet on October 29, 2007, Bill Lerach entered a guilty plea (refer here), and on September 20, 2007, Mel Weiss was indicted on criminal charges (here). (For more about Lerach's criminal charges, refer here; for Weiss's, refer here).

The impact of the criminal issues involving the two leading securities plaintiffs' lawyers is perhaps incalculable, but it does not seem a mere coincidence that shortly after Lerach left his former law firm (now reconstituted as Coughlin, Stoia,Geller, Rudman & Robbins) the firm seemingly went into high gear, filing numerous new securities class action lawsuits. The Milberg Weiss firm, meanwhile, which also faces its own criminal charges, has essentially filed no new lawsuits since 2005.

While there are many opportunistic lawyers hoping to capitalize on the changes at the leading plaintiffs' firms, it remains to be seen whether any of these firms can duplicate the role that the erstwhile leading firms have played in the past.

5. Largest Derivative Settlement Ever in UnitedHealth Option Backdating Case: The 2006 D & O story of the year undoubtedly was the options backdating scandal. The story has faded from the headlines in 2007 as the subprime scandal has emerged, but the numerous backdating lawsuits (refer here for a complete tally) are now working their way through the system. Although many of the options backdating lawsuits have been dismissed or have settled for relatively nominal amounts (refer here for a complete list of options backdating case dispositions), there have been some exceptions. The most exceptional outcome is the record settlement in the UnitedHealth Group options backdating derivative lawsuit, which apparently represents the largest derivative settlement ever.

As detailed here, in the settlement, former UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire and several other former UnitedHealth directors and officers agreed to a combination of surrender or relinquishment of stock others and other interests; repayment of certain compensation; and the repricing of other stock option awards, all of which collectively represents a value to the company in excess of $900 million. The value of McGuire's contribution alone reportedly was valued at more that $600 million.

The sheer magnitude of these values makes this settlement noteworthy. The more interesting question is the extent to which this settlement will affect the resolution of the options backdating cases that remain pending, as well as future shareholders' derivative lawsuit resolutions.

6. Stoneridge Case Argued: The Tellabs decision was not the only important D & O story out of the Supreme Court this year. On October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court head argument in the Stoneridge v. Scientific Atlanta case. At the time, the case was described as the "business case of the year." How important it will ultimately be remains to be seen, but it could have a very significant impact, as detailed at greater length here.

The case will determine the extent to which a third-party that did not actually make a misrepresentation or misleading statement can be held liable under for securities fraud under Section 10 of the '34 Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The seemingly likeliest outcome is a narrow holding that does not expand the scope of Section 10(b) liability. The Court's opinion will be released some time before the end of the current Supreme Court term in June 2008. Until the outcome is known, the possibility (however remote) that the Court might overturn the Eighth Circuit and find an expansive basis for "scheme liability" makes this an important case to watch.

7. Global Warming Disclosure Issues Heat Up: Because global warming is one of the predominant social, political and economic issues of our age, it is almost inevitable that it would be come an important D & O issue as well. As I discuss at length here, the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision in the Massachusetts v. EPA case provided a new context within which global warming has emerged as a concern for corporate officials. Existing disclosure requirements and activists' proxy ballot initiatives ensure that this issue will remain as a significant corporate challenge.

Several developments that emerged as the year progressed underscore that global climate change is likely to remain a hot button issue for the foreseeable future, as detailed further here. The first occurred on September 14, 2007, when the New York Attorney General subpoened (refer here) five energy companies demanding that they disclose the financial risks of their greenhouse gas emissions to shareholders. The second is the petition submitted to the SEC by 22 different groups seeking to have the SEC require companies to assess and fully disclose their financial risks from greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.

The activists' focus on disclosure issues has serious implications because issues surrounding are at the heart of most D & O claims. Because this issue is likely to grow in importance in coming years, companies may face even greater disclosure pressures and a corresponding increase in liability exposures.

8. Busted Buyouts Beget Litigation: The bursting of the private equity buyout bubble has not only left a raft of busted buyouts in its wake, but has also led to a host of new securities lawsuits. Disappointed target companies that have not become the target of securities class action lawsuits included Radian (about which refer here), Harman Industries (refer here), United Rentals (refer here), and Genesco (refer here). Disappointed target companies that have also lawsuits against their erstwhile acquirers include United Rental's unsuccessful lawsuits against Cerberus Management Company (refer here) and Genesco's lawsuit against Finish Line (refer here).

There are a host of other deals that are dead or on life support, as detailed on the M & A Law Prof blog (here). There may be one or more of the companies on this list that may yet find themselves with a securities lawsuit to complement their woes. In any event, the busted deal securities lawsuits collectively represent just one more factor driving the increase in securities lawsuits in 2007.

9. Qwest Opt-Out Settlements Exceed Amount of Class Action Settlement: There have always been opt-outs from securities class action settlements, but during 2007, a number of separate and very substantial opt-out settlements raised potentially important implications for future class action settlements, as well as for D & O insurers' severity assumptions and policyholders' views of limits adequacy.

The case with the highest dollar value of publicly reported opt-out settlements is the AOL Time Warner securities litigation, where the nine publicly disclosed opt-out settlements total $795 million, as detailed here. But perhaps even more significant is the Qwest securities litigation, where the $411 million aggregate value of the collective opt-out settlements exceeded the $400 million class action settlements, as further detailed here. When the value of the opt outs settlements tops the value of the class settlement, you know you've got a problem.

The emergence of the opt-out settlements presents a host of potentially complicating problems for current and future securities class action litigants, particularly if significant opt-out settlements become a regular part of securities litigation. These developments could increase litigation expense and aggregate settlement expense in civil securities litigation, and even further complicate efforts to resolve class action lawsuits.

10. Section 11 Settlement Held Not Covered "Loss": Although there had been a prior case holding that a Section 11 settlement is not a covered "loss" under a D & O policy, the prior decision was an intermediate state appellate court decision from Indiana, and was viewed as an anomaly in some quarters. So there was quite a reaction when, on March 14, 2007, Judge Gregory Presnell of the United Stated District Court for the Central District of Florida held (refer here) that the $35 million settlement to which CNL Hotels & Resorts agreed to resolve Section 11 claims does not constitute covered "loss" under a D & O policy and was not insurable as a matter of law.

While at one level, Judge Presnell's decision was merely an extension of existing case law, it did pose a challenge for the D & O insurance industry to address Section 11 settlement issues in the policy itself. Judge Presnell did specifically note that Section 11 settlements are not "per se" uninsurable. Since the CNL Hotels & Resorts opinion came down, the industry has been scrambling to come up with a policy-based solution, to address policyholder expectations of coverage for Section 11 settlements. The industry is still struggling toward equilibrium on this issue, which remains potentially very important for insured companies and their directors and officers.

Top Top Ten Lists: What could top a top ten list but a list of top top ten lists-- Time Magazine has compled fifty top ten lists for 2007 here.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks