Tag Archives: failed bank litigation

Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of All Claims Against Failed Bank’s Directors, Revives Negligence Claims Against Bank’s Officers

On August 18, 2015, in an interesting opinion that takes a close look at exculpatory bylaw issues and the business judgment rule under North Carolina law, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the failed bank lawsuit the FDIC had filed against former directors and officers of … Continue Reading

Tenth Circuit: D&O Insurance Policy’s Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Precludes Coverage for FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims

In an important decision concerning D&O insurance coverage in connection with failed bank claims, the Tenth Circuit, applying Kansas law, held that a D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage for claims brought by the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers. The Tenth Circuit’s decision arguably … Continue Reading

A Credit Crisis-Era Vestige: Fourth Circuit Affirms Bank Executives’ Criminal Conviction

Federal prosecutors have come in for considerable criticism over their failure to press criminal charges against executives of financial institutions whose stumbles led to the global financial crisis. As Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff pointed out in his blistering January 9, 2014 opinion column in The New York Review of Books (here), … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Eleventh Circuit Holds Insured v. Insured Exclusion’s Applicability to FDIC Failed Bank Claims Ambiguous

Going all the way back to the S&L crisis, a recurring insurance coverage issue that has arisen in the failed bank context has been the question of whether or not coverage for a claim brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of a failed bank against the failed bank’s former directors and officers … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Applicability to FDIC Failed Bank Claim Held Ambiguous

As I have previously noted on this blog, one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues arising during the latest bank failure wave has been the question whether the Insured  vs. Insured Exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank against the failed bank’s former … Continue Reading

Georgia Supreme Court Affirms, Elucidates Business Judgment Rule – and Its Limitations

A recurring issue in FDIC litigation against the former directors and officers of failed banks has been whether the business judgment rule insulates the defendants  from claims of ordinary negligence. This question has been particularly important in Georgia, where there were more bank failures than any in other state and consequently more failed bank litigation. … Continue Reading

First Circuit: D&O Insurer Must Advance Failed Bank Directors and Officers’ Defense Expenses

In an interesting March 31, 2014 opinion (here), the Unites States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying Puerto Rico law, affirmed a district court’s ruling that the D&O insurer for the failed Westernbank of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico must advance the bank’s former directors’ and officers’ expenses incurred in defending the FDIC’s suit against … Continue Reading

FDIC: Banks Improve, Number of Problem Institutions Continues to Decline

The commercial banking industry is continuing its rebound from the subprime meltdown and the global financial crisis. According to the FDIC’s latest Quarterly Banking Profile for the period ending December 31, 2014 (here), the industry’s overall earnings continue to improve, largely as a result of reduced loan-loss provisions. However, operating revenue declined during 2013 compared … Continue Reading

Guest Post: The Business Judgment Rule Under Attack

In many jurisdictions, corporate officials sued for their actions undertaken in their corporate capacity may be able to defend themselves in reliance on the “business judgment rule.” This rule is designed to prevent courts from second-guessing the decisions of directors and officers. The defense has become particularly important in connection with the extensive litigation the … Continue Reading

Eleventh Circuit Rejects FDIC’s “No Duty” Argument, Allows Post-Receivership Affirmative Defenses Against the Agency

One of the most contentious issues in the litigation the FDIC has been pursuing in its capacity as receiver of various failed banks is whether the defendant former directors and officers can assert affirmative defenses against the FDIC for the agency’s own conduct.   In a part of a December 23, 2013 Eleventh Circuit opinion … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Precludes Coverage for FDIC Failed Bank Lawsuit

One of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues that has arisen during the current wave of failed bank litigation has been the question whether coverage for an action by the FDIC in its role as receiver of a failed bank against a failed bank’s directors and officers is precluded by the Insured vs. Insured exclusion … Continue Reading

FDIC Failed Bank D&O Litigation Update

On July 15, 2013, the FDIC provided the latest update on the web page on which the agency is tracking the litigation it has filed and that has been authorized against the directors and offices of failed banks. According to the latest update, the FDIC has now filed a total of 69 lawsuits against failed … Continue Reading

When the Business Judgment Rule Isn’t Available to Protect Directors

A recurring issue in the litigation the FDIC has filed against the directors and officers of failed banks is the question of whether or not officers – as opposed to directors – can rely on the business judgment rule as a defense under applicable state law. A July 8, 2013 decision by Judge Dean Pregerson applying … Continue Reading

FDIC Failed Bank Litigation Update

Typically, the FDIC updates the professional liability lawsuits page about once a month, but on June 7, 2013, only about two weeks after its last update, the FDIC again updated the page to include new lawsuit information. According to the information in the latest update, the FDIC has now filed a total of 65 lawsuits … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Notice to Claims Department Required to Satisfy Notice Requirements

Disputes over notice of claim requirements usually involve questions about the timing or content of the notice. A recent notice dispute involving UnitedHealth Group raised neither questions of timing or content; rather, the dispute involved the question of “to whom” the notice must be sent. In an April 25, 2013 opinion (here), District of Minnesota Judge … Continue Reading
LexBlog