SciClone Settles FCPA Follow-on Derivative Suit : In a settlement that involves a company with significant Chinese operations — and that also may represent something of a template for the settlement of FCPA enforcement follow-on civil lawsuits — SciClone Pharmaceuticals and the individual defendant directors and officers have agreed to settle the consolidated derivative lawsuits
EPL Insurance: EEOC Lawsuit Not a Covered Claim?
Every now and then, I run across a case that makes me stop and say, “What?” I had that experience recently when I read the September 21, 2011 opinion of Middle District of Tennessee Judge John T. Nixon in an insurance coverage dispute involving Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. In the opinion
Securities Suit Against U.S.-Listed Chinese Company Dismissed
In what is as far as I know the first outright dismissal motion grant in the wave of cases filed against U.S.-Listed Chinese companies that began last year, on October 6, 2011, Southern District of New York Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the securities class action lawsuit filed against
Briefly Noted: Interesting Securities Law Developments
Janus Distinguished: In an interesting opinion that distinguishes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus, on September 30, 2011 Southern District of New York Judge John Koetl granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the EnergySolutions securities class action lawsuit. Judge Koetl’s opinion can be found here.
The Travel Issue
The D&O Diary is on assignment in Europe this week. The first stop on the Continental itinerary was Amsterdam.I had never been to Amsterdam before, but I have traveled to Northern Europe quite a bit, so when I packed I made sure to load up on sweatshirts and a fleece. And an umbrella. As it
Excess D&O Insurers Not Required to Drop Down to Fund Insolvent Underlying Insurer Gaps
In a case involving multiple ghosts of long lost companies, a judge in federal court in Manhattan has held that excess D&O insurers do not have a duty to “drop down” to fill the gaps in coverage caused by the insolvency of underlying insurers. The court also held, based on the language of the excess