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

In an earlier post (here), I wrote about a December 30, 2009 ruling in the MBIA coverage litigation that special litigation committee investigation expenses were covered under a D&O liability insurance policy. As I anticipated, the decision has proven to be controversial.

Two law firms that traditionally act as coverage counsel for D&O carriers recently released memoranda discussing the opinion. The Wiley Rein issued a brief memo (here) discussing the case and its holding. The Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge law firm released a longer memorandum (here) also discussing the opinion.

The Edwards Angell memo, written by my friend John McCarrick and his colleagues, Maurice Pesso and Peter de Boisblanc, is particularly interesting because opens by reviewing the justification for the insurers’ standard position that special litigation committee expenses are not covered under the typical D&O insurance policy.

The Edwards Angell memo also includes a review of implications of and the likely consequences that flow from the decision. Among other things, the memo stresses that the decision did not hold that special litigation committee expenses will always be covered, but only under the facts presented. The memo also recites the difficulties and logical problems involved with characterizing the special litigation committee expenses as "defense costs" (including the likelihood that plaintiffs might use the characterization as a way of challenging the independence of the special litigation committee.).

The Edwards Angell memo concludes with this observation:

Unless and until the D&O insurers in MBIA press a successful appeal of this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, D&O insurers should brace themselves for the likelihood that the MBIA ruling will be cited by policyholder counsel and brokers in an effort to significantly expand the scope of coverage for these kinds of legal expenses and costs, as well as to cover other fees and expenses that an insured can argue were incurred "in connection with" a covered D&O claim.

The memo provides an interesting presentation of the carrier perspective on the decision. Reading the memo, I wondered whether any policyholder-side coverage attorneys had written their own analyses of the decision from the perspective of insured companies. I hope that any readers aware of these alternative perspectives will please send them along to me. I will update this post with any additional materials that are sent to me about the case.

One final note on a related subject -- the Wilmer Hale law firm has an interesting memo about recent developments in shareholder derivative litigation (here), which, among other things, discusses court's' increased scrutiny of special litigation committees, particularly with respect to the  question whether or not the committees are in fact independent.

NAB Update: The closely watched National Bank of Australia case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari from the Second Circuit has now been scheduled for oral argument. According to a post on The 10b5-Daily (here), oral argument in the case, which will address the question of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of U.S. courts over foreign domiciled companies under the U.S. securities laws, is now set for March 29, 2010.

The 10b-5 Daily post also has a link to the Petitioners’ Brief., which argues that under the federal securities laws there are no extraterritorial limitations on the U.S. courts’ jurisdiction. Finally, the blog post also links to a National Law Journal article (here) written by Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee suggesting that, in light of various pending legislative proposals, Congress and the Supreme Court are on a "collision course" on the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the U.S. securities laws. Coffee concludes by suggesting that "a legal train wreck might result from opposing approaches to global class actions."

Detailed background regarding the NAB case can be found here.

Another Belated Securities Lawsuit Filing: In prior posts (for example, here), I have noted the phenomenon that developed in the second-half of 2009 where plaintiffs’ lawyers were filing securities class action lawsuit complaints well after the proposed class period cutoff date. In a more recent post (here), I noted that at least one lawsuit first filed in January suggested that this trend has continued in the New Year.

Yet another case filed this week suggests that this trend is continuing. In a January 21, 2010 press release (here), plaintiffs’ lawyers announced that they had filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against Motorola and certain of its directors and officers. The lawsuit relates to alleged misrepresentations about the company’s sales of its RAZR2 telephone handset. The complaint in the case can be found here.

Though the complaint was only just filed, the proposed class period cutoff date is January 22, 2008, a full one year and 364 days prior to the filing date, and just before the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations applicable to ’34 Act claims.

In his comments in connection with the recent release of Cornerstone’s year-end analysis of the securities class action lawsuits, Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest had a number of choice comments about these belated securities class action lawsuit filings, essentially suggesting that the plaintiffs are scraping the bottom of the barrel (my words, not his) to file these belated lawsuits because they had run out of more meritorious cases to file. Public statements by leading plaintiffs’ attorneys (refer, for example, here) suggest more neutrally that they are just getting around to filing cases that were "backburnered" while the lawyers were concentrating on getting the subprime and credit crisis cases on file.

But whatever the explanation may be for the belated case filings, it is a very distinct phenomenon that has appears to be continuing as move well into 2010.

New SEC Climate Change Disclosure Guidance Ahead?: In prior posts (here), I discussed the possibility that the SEC could issue guidelines for public companies’ disclosures about climate change related issues and exposures. As discussed on the FEI Financial Reporting Blog (here), the SEC has announced (here) that in a meeting on January 27, 2010, it will be considering "a recommendation to publish an interpretive release to provide guidance to public companies regarding the Commission's current disclosure requirements concerning matters relating to climate change."

As the FEI Financial Reporting Blog explains, an interpretive release of this type is designed to provide final guidance on existing disclosure requirements. The blog post speculates that the guidance could be effective immediately upon release.

Cheers: I have joined the Facebook group "A Glass of Wine Solves Everything." (here). In vino veritas, dude. I recently have developed an affinity for two very different kinds of red, Oregon Pinot Noir and Argentine Malbec -- in part because one of the problems I have to solve is that I can't afford the Burgundys, Bordeauxs and Super Tuscans I would prefer. In my next life, my blog will be about wine.

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

The global financial crisis has produced challenges across the entire economy, but the financial sector, where all the problems arguably began, has been particularly hard hit. While the most investment firms and other banking institutions may have experienced the most dramatic consequences, insurance companies have also been swept up in the whirlwind.

The extent of the recession’s impact on insurance companies and the resulting consequences for the insurance marketplace are the subjects of an April 2009 paper from insurance industry data firm Advisen entitled "The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the P&C Insurance Industry" (here, $ required). Advisen’s April 2, 2009 press release describing the report can be found here.

According to the paper, the various economic forces at play will likely shrink insurers’ policyholder surplus, thus diminishing the supply of insurance. These circumstances ordinarily would produce a so-called "hard" market, characterized by rising prices for insurance. However, the reduction in economic activity as a result of the current recession could also reduce the demand for insurance, which in turn could complicate the insurance cycle’s transition and "make for a very turbulent 2009" for the insurance industry.

The major cause for the reduction in the demand for insurance, which according to the paper could delay the transition to a hard market, is "shrinking exposure units." An exposure unit is the basis for calculating premium – for example, the size of an employer’s workforce will determine the employer’s workers comp and EPL insurance premiums.

Many of the exposure units that are critical for determining pricing for a variety of insurance lines – such as sales, real estate square footage, number and mileage of vehicles, payroll, and property values – are all likely to shrink in the months ahead, as a result of the recession. The shrinking exposure base will produce a fall-off in insurers’ top-line revenue.

In addition, insurance demand will also likely be further eroded as businesses close or fail. Even companies that survive may seek to increase self-insured retentions or limits, as a way to cut costs.

The reduction in demand will also likely be accompanied by a reduction in supply, in the form of policyholder surplus, both as a result of increased claims losses and as a result of diminished investment income and investment losses.

The likely increased claims losses could arise from a variety of sources. The paper states that job losses frequently are accompanies by an increase in the frequency and severity of workers’ comp claims. Reductions in force also could trigger EPL claims. And as has been well documented on this blog (refer here), the current economic crisis has also produced a wave of shareholder claims. As the Advisen report notes, these claims are particularly complex which will make them costly to defend and could also make them costly to resolve. D&O claims arising from bankruptcies and E&O claims arising from the various Ponzi scheme scandals could exacerbate the claims losses that insurers experience.

On the investment side, insurers’ investment results have taken a massive hit. Many insurers have had to take huge write-downs, both in their fixed income assets and with respect to more exotic investments. A few insurers have been particularly hard hit with valuation issues concerning "toxic" assets.

In more typical cycle transitions, insurance pricing swings result from changes on the supply side (i.e., policyholder surplus). But the depth of the current economic crisis could also uncharacteristically affect the demand for insurance. One proxy for insurance demand is GDP. When policyholder surplus declines relative to GDP, a hard market usually follows. In the current circumstances, GDP is under pressure, but the decline in policyholder surplus is relatively greater.

These circumstances, together with the likely difficulty insurers will face trying to raise fresh capital, suggest that the insurance marketplace will eventually harden, and higher premiums eventually will result. The Advisen paper projects that the hard market could "begin to set in" as early as mid-2009, and in any event no later than 2010.

However, the hard market will "likely take off slowly" due to lack of consumer and business confidence. When it comes, though, the hard market "could extend longer than previous hard markets owing to the lack of new capital entering the market."

The Advisen report is accompanied by extensive supporting data and analysis, and I think the author makes an excellent point about the pressure that the recession will put on the demand side of the insurance equation

As for the report’s predictions of the arrival and timing of a forthcoming hard market, I guess time will tell. In my view, a hard market is characterized by more than just rising prices; among other things, it also means a shortage of capacity as well as a constriction of terms and conditions. If there really were going to be a hard market as early as mid-2009 (which at this point is only a couple of months away), you would expect some sign of these things in the marketplace, but so far there is very little evidence of any of these things. Which at a minimum suggests to me that if there is going to be a hard market, its arrival could be more delayed than the report suggests.

That said, the report does make a compelling case for the likelihood that there actually will be a hard market this time. It may not be a question of whether, but only of when. Overall, the report is interesting and provides useful analysis of the current insurance marketplace and its likely future direction. The report is well worth reading at length and in full and I commend it to everyone.

Rescission Denied: Policy rescission is a controversial topic. But because the debate often involves high profile cases where the insurer has successfully rescinded a policy, it is sometimes overlooked how difficult it is for insurers to rescind coverage. A recent decision illustrates the difficulties carriers face when they seek to rescind a policy.

In a March 25, 2009 opinion (here), New York (New York Country) Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos granted summary judgment for JP Morgan Chase in an insurance dispute involving several high profile claims. An excess insurer in J.P. Morgan’s bankers professional liability insurance program had sought to rescind its policy based on alleged misrepresentations in the company’s 2001-02 insurance renewal.

The excess insurer claimed that the company had made misrepresentations about its exposure to Enron, both in a Notice of Potential Claim submitted under the prior insurance program and in a Press Release.

As reflected in the April 2009 memo from the Proskauer Rose law firm entitled "Court Grants Summary Judgment Dismissing Insurer’s Rescission Claim" (here), Judge Ramos found that the Notice and the Press Release were not part of the renewal materials, and the insurer had not asked the company to warrant either document in connection with the renewal.

Judge Ramos also found that there was no issue of triable fact either that the insurer’s underwriters relied on the documents or that the company officials who prepared the documents were aware of any misrepresentations in the documents.

Judge Ramos also found that the insurer had waived rescission because it did not raise the defense until 2006, several years later, and had retained the premium.

While much more might be said about this decision, if nothing else, Judge Ramos’s opinion demonstrates the many hurdles carriers face in attempting to rescind a policy. Any carrier considering policy rescission might well want to review the opinion.

A prior post in which I discuss the difficulties carriers face in attempting to rescind coverage can be found here. Among other things, I note that "policy rescission wreaks havoc on all concerned."

Special thanks to John Gross and Michelle Migdon of the Proskauer Rose firm for providing a copy of the opinion.

More About the Bailout: Much has been written and said about the gargantuan federal bailout. A March 19, 2009 Rolling Stone article entitled "The Big Takeover" (here) presents a particularly irreverent and occasionally profane perspective on the subject.

Although the overall tone of the article borders on feverish, and the article definitely tends toward the conspiracy view of the world, it also contains some funny lines as well as some interesting observations. I particularly liked the author’s take on AIG: "AIG is what happens when short, bald managers of otherwise boring financial bureaucracies start seeing Brad Pitt in the mirror."

The article’s overall take on the bailout is summarized in this paragraph:

In essence, Paulson and his cronies turned the federal government into one gigantic, half-opaque holding company, one whose balance sheet includes the world's most appallingly large and risky hedge fund, a controlling stake in a dying insurance giant, huge investments in a group of teetering megabanks, and shares here and there in various auto-finance companies, student loans, and other failing businesses. Like AIG, this new federal holding company is a firm that has no mechanism for auditing itself and is run by leaders who have very little grasp of the daily operations of its disparate subsidiary operations.

The report concludes with the observation about the bailout that "it’s AIG’s rip-roaringly shitty business model writ almost inconceivably massive." (I should probably emphasize that the view in the article quoted above are those of the article’s author, and do not necessarily represent the view or sentiments of this blog’s author.)

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the Rolling Stone article.

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

In a statement issued on Tuesday evening (here), the Federal Reserve announced that it had authorized a loan of up to $85 billion to American International Group. This move is described in detail in a September 17, 2008 Wall Street Journal article entitled "U.S. to Take Over AIG in a $85 Billion Bailout" (here). Bloomberg’s article describing the development can be found here.

The Outlines of the Loan Facility

The loan facility, which the statement says has been extended pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, has been "designed to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers." According to the Real Time Economics blog (here), the only other time this specific Fed power has been exercised since the Depression era was in connection with the Bear Stearns bailout.

The Fed statement says that it exercised its authority because of adverse economic effects that would follow from a "disorderly failure" of AIG. The loan facility is designed to permit AIG to "meet obligations" in order to "facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner."

The facility has a 24-month term. The interest rate is set at three month LIBOR plus 850 basis points. Three month LIBOR is a variable rate that resets weekly. The current weekly rate (here) is 2.81%, so the current interest rate on this loan facility is 11.31% -- pretty hefty. Just keep in mind that annual (simple) interest of 11.31% on $1 billion is $113.1 million. On $10 billion it is $1.131 billion. And on $85 billion it is $9.61 billion.

The loan is collateralized by all of the assets of AIG and of its non-regulated subsidiaries. (The good news here is that the assets of the regulated subsidiaries – the insurance companies – are off limits.) The loan is to be repaid from asset sale proceeds.

According to the Fed statement, the government "will receive a 79.9% equity interest" in AIG, with the right to veto dividends to common and preferred shareholders.

The size of the facility presumably was set to accommodate all likely requirements, so AIG may or may not draw down all of it. But AIG will most likely draw down a very large part of it. AIG will have to repay its borrowings (plus interest). In referring to the means of repayment, the press release refers to the orderly sale of "businesses," so one can assume that the non-core subsidiaries are on the blocks for an "orderly" sale.

Questions about the Loan Facility

The problem for AIG is that sale of its non-core subsidiaries alone may not be sufficient to pay back even half of $85 billion. The Deal Journal blog estimates (here) that sales of AIG’s non-core subsidiaries and minority interests might raise "as much as $42 billion" – and that, I might add, is before taxes. (I think Uncle Sam will insist on the payment of all applicable taxes.) Which raises the question whether the sale of "businesses" specifically contemplates the sale of some or all of AIG’s core insurance operations?

Left unanswered in the Fed press release is the question of what this development means for AIG’s continuing business operations. The primary goal of the Fed facility is the orderly sale (as opposed to the "disorderly failure," as the Fed statement put it) of AIG’s businesses. What does this imply about the future of AIG’s operating companies? And what will be left of AIG after the "orderly sale"?

Presumably, the answers to many of these questions will become apparent in the days ahead. In the meantime, there are some things that everyone will want to know. I have posed some of these questions below. Please note that many of these questions may simply be a reflection of the limited amount of information currently available. Many of these questions may appear simple-minded once the information is known. But based on what we know so far, here are the other things we still need to know:

1. Who will run the company? Is current senior management to remain in place, or will AIG get its third CEO this year? (For the record, the government did embed new management at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of the recent takeover.). How about the Board of Directors, will they also be replaced?

UPDATE: The New York Times reports (here) that AIG CEO Robert Willumstad will be replaced by Edward M. Liddy, the former chairman of Allstate Corporation.

2. What exactly does government ownership of 79.9% of the company equity mean? Is this just a shorthand way of saying that the government is entitled roughly 80% of any later liquidation? Or is there more to it than that?

For example, does the government want the value of its ownership interest to grow? What will the government ultimately do with its ownership interest? Will the government sell its interest, and if so, when, to whom, for what price, and under what circumstance? Why is the government now the majority owner of a major insurance company? Does the government want its insurance company to compete and succeed in a competitive marketplace against investor owned insurance companies?

3. The government wants to get repaid, so it wants the "orderly sale" of the businesses to produce sales values sufficient to effect repayment. That implies that the operating companies should continue operating. But among the insurance companies, for example, there are many practical questions that only active and engaged management can decide – risk appetite, level of pricing aggressiveness, extent of reinsurance, limit exposures, prohibited classes, and so on. All of these decisions must now take place under potentially unusual conditions, in effect under the supervision of a government appointed caretaker/liquidator?

4. What impact will these developments have on credit ratings, both at the parent company level and at the insurance subsidiary level? The fact the company’s primary mission now seems to be a slow-motion liquidation is clearly a relevant factor, as are the unusual operating conditions. In addition, I would expect that all of AIG’s other debt is subordinate to the Fed loan, which also seems relevant to financial strength ratings.

5. What happens if $85 billion is not enough? This is not as absurd of a question as it might seem at first glance. Keep in mind that AIG just raised $20 billion in the second quarter and that clearly was not enough. What does the current lending facility imply about the future – for AIG, for taxpayers, for the economy?

6. What about the credit rating for the U.S. government? How far can this go? The U.S. government just assumed responsibility for $5 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt. When do we start to get concerned about the government’s balance sheet? When do we start to get concerned about the ability of the U.S. to meet of all of its obligations?

Policyholders’ Interests

Finally, I must address the interests of policyholders. On Tuesday, AIG released a statement (here) that its insurance subsidiaries "remain adequately capitalized and fully capable of meeting their obligations to policyholders." Along those lines, it is important to keep in mind that AIG’s current predicament is not the result of insurance losses, so the separately capitalized insurance companies’ ability to meet its obligations essentially remains unchanged.

Moreover, the collateral securing the Fed’s lending facility does not include the insurance companies’ assets, so even if the parent company heads south in a big way despite the $85 billion loan, the insurance companies’ existing surplus should remain to address policyholder claims, subject of course to the effects of claims payment.

In the days ahead it will be very important to understand how the current operating circumstances will affect the insurance companies and their operations, and in particular whether there are any other implications for policyholder surplus and the insurance companies’ claims paying ability.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Because of trees felled last night as Ike’s remnants swept through Ohio, I was unable to make it to the office today. I spent more or less the entire day on the telephone talking about AIG, looking out at my yard strewn with fallen tree limbs, branches, twigs and leaves – a visually suitable tableau give the winds that ripped through Wall Street over the last 48 hours.

With respect to AIG, can I just say that today’s mainstream media coverage regarding AIG was absolutely terrible? For most of the day, various news reports seemed to suggest that New York insurance regulators had authorized AIG’s insurance subsidiaries to loan the parent company $20 billion. However, when the transcript of New York Governor David Paterson’s Monday afternoon press conference (here) was later made available on the Governor’s website, it became clear that what the regulators had authorized was quite a bit different than depicted in the media.

As the transcript explains (if you read the whole thing), the regulators have authorized an "asset swap." The idea is that the insurance subsidiaries are swapping the more liquid assets they hold for less liquid assets of equal or greater value held by the parent company, so that the parent company can post the liquid assets as collateral. The transaction is further explained in a CFO.com article here.

The governor himself noted that this swap transaction alone is not sufficient to see AIG through this current crisis, as the working number for AIG’s current requirements is $40 billion. Much about the asset swap transaction "depends" – that is, it depends on the company’s ability to raise the additional funds it requires, it depends on the actual assets that are transferred, it depends on what further capital requirements AIG may have in this rapidly changing environment.

The critical question of the sufficiency of policyholder protection in light of the asset swap will depend on the quality of the assets exchanged. One can hope that given what is at stake that there is a great deal of transparency concerning the assets the insurance subsidiaries receive. Given the regulators’ involvement, one can also hope that policyholders’ interests will not be subordinated to the interests of AIG’s shareholders or bondholders.

In the final analysis, AIG’s ultimate circumstances may finally depend on what the credit rating agencies do. CNN is reporting tonight (here) that Fitch’s has already downgraded AIG’s financial ratings, which potentially could trigger significant additional collateral requirements on the AIG’s credit default swap contracts, perhaps as much as $13.3 billion. The specifics regarding the Fitch downgrades can be found here. Following suit, S&P has also downgraded AIG's counterparty and financial strength ratings (refer here), with the lowered ratings remaining on credit watch "with negative implications." Apparently the downgrades fully considered the potential benefits to AIG as a result of the asset swap transaction.

Perhaps of equally significant (if not greater) concern to readers of this blog is the action this evening by A.M. Best’s to downgrade AIG’s property/casualty insurance financial strength rating to A (Excellent) from A+ (Superior), about which refer here.

UPDATE: A September 16, 2008 Financial Times article entitled "Downgrades Deepen AIG Woes" can be found here. Moody's has apparently downgraded AIG as well (refer here).

There will be further material developments ahead. The ultimate outcome remains to be seen. The company itself did not publicly comment as these events unfolded today, but some reports suggest that there will be a company statement prior to the opening of the markets tomorrow.

About Lehman: At the same time as AIG’s struggles, the details of Lehman’s demise have started to emerge, starting with the company’s Monday morning bankruptcy petition, which can be found here. The Dealbreaker blog has distilled some of the more interesting tidbits from the petition, here.

A more scholarly look at the Lehman petition can be found on the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog (here), which notes that the petition bears the indicia of having been prepared in haste. The blog also notes that as a result of recent bankruptcy law revisions, Lehman’s petition may face some rather complicated challenges. (Hat tip to Francis Pileggi of the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, here, for the link to the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog.)

Roger Parloff also discusses on the Legal Pad blog (here) the challenges that Lehman’s petition presents. As statements Parloff quotes on his blog make clear, Lehman may not be able to enjoy one of the primary benefits usually available to company’s filing a bankruptcy petition, the automatic stay. Bankruptcy laws relating exclusively to investment banks provide that Lehman’s transaction counterparties can now, even after the petition filing, seek to terminate their contracts with Lehman, which could further exacerbate the current distress.

And on another note, CFO.com has an interesting article (here) asking the question whether Lehman’s creditors can try to recoup the $5.7 billion in bonuses that Lehman paid its employees in December 2007.

The damage from Lehman’s collapse will be widespread, as investors holding its shares and even its debt securities will likely see little or nothing on their investment. This asset wipeout comes on the heels of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac takeout, and at the same time as the precipitous decline in AIG’s shares. All of this means that in a few short days a significant chunk of asset valuation has disappeared (and that is not even counting the overall decline in market values today). These investment losses are going to hit a lot of other companies, not to mention pensions, mutual funds, hedge funds, other insurance companies, endowment funds and so on. These losses will have to be reckoned in the weeks and months to come.

The extent of the consequences from these events may be difficult to foresee even now,  though the events have been widely reported. Who could have foreseen that when Ike came roaring ashore early Saturday morning in Galveston that on Monday morning trees would be down all over Northeast Ohio?

For Those Who Can’t Wait: If you are (like me) one of those people who need to know what it all means, you will want to refer to Professor Davidoff’s overview on the Dealbook blog (here). An analysis that takes a darker, more cynical view of these events can be found on The Big Picture blog (here).

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