As readers of this blog know, enforcement activity under the False Claims Act (FCA) has continued to expand, particularly in light of the Trump Administration’s recent efforts to prioritize fraud enforcement through its Task Force to Eliminate Fraud. At the same time, a new development may fundamentally alter the FCA enforcement landscape. On March 21, 2026, Eli Lilly and Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to declare the FCA’s qui tam provisions unconstitutional (Eli Lilly Writ or Writ). 

Continue Reading A Writ Challenging Qui Tam and D&O Implications

In an interesting decision analzing how a D&O run-off policy’s Subsequent Acts Exclusion operates, a New York federal district court has ruled that acts after the cut-off date that aren’t unlawful don’t preclude coverage for an underlying claim based on alleged misrepresentations made before the cut-off date. Judge Jed Rakoff’s March 13, 2026, decision in the case, applying New York law, can be found here. A March 18, 2026 post about the decision on the Pillsbury law firm’s Policyholder Pulse blog can be found here.

Continue Reading Later Acts that are Not “Wrongful” Don’t Bar D&O Run-Off Coverage
James Sterlin
Mike Newham

In the following guest post, James Sterling, Claims Counsel, Euclid Financial & Professional Risks, and Mike Newham, Partner, RPC, consider the economic and underwriting risks associated with the private credit markets. A version of this article previously was published on LinkedIn and on Euclid’s website. My thanks to James and Mike for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. Here is the authors’ article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Private Credit – Risky Business?

Public company D&O insurance policies restrict “entity coverage” (that is, coverage for claims directly against the corporate entity, as opposed to those against individual directors and officers) to “Securities Claims.” If a claim against the company is not Securities Claim then there is no coverage for the company’s defense fees, settlements, and judgments. This obviously creates a huge incentive for the companies to try to show that the claims against them are Securities Claims – which, in turn, has spawned a great deal of coverage litigation addressing the question whether or not a particular corporate lawsuit is or not a Securities Claim.

In the latest example of these kinds of coverage disputes, last week the District of Maryland, applying Maryland law, held that an antitrust claim filed against a corporate entity was not a securities claim within the meaning of the applicable policy – not because the antitrust claim was not “Securities Claims,” but rather because the dispute did not involve alleged transactions in the securities of the company or its subsidiaries. The Maryland court’s March 24, 2026, opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Not a “Securities Claim” if No Securities of the “Company” Involved

The recently filed securities class action against Beyond Meat (Beyond Meat SCA) illustrates how accounting judgments, industry-wide demand shifts, and corporate turnaround narratives can create D&O exposure. Filed in January 2026, the complaint alleges that Beyond Meat and senior executives misled investors during 2025 by failing to timely disclose a material asset impairment while publicly emphasizing operational discipline and a path toward EBITDA-positive performance. As discussed below, the allegations arise amid a broader deterioration in the plant-based meat sector, documented in a March 10, 2025, CNBC report, and alongside emerging academic research questioning the assumed health advantages of plant-based meat alternatives.

Taken together with the allegations of the Beyond Meat SCA, the marketplace shift and emerging academic findings may provide a useful lens for assessing certain D&O underwriting risk.

Continue Reading D&O Lessons from the Beyond Meat SCA

In the months since the current Trump administration first announced the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, some companies have struggled to deal with the tariffs’ economic impacts, and in at least some cases, companies’ tariff-related problems have led to securities class action litigation (as discussed, most recently, for example, here). In the latest example of this phenomenon, earlier this week the social media company Pinterest was hit with a securities suit after the company announced that tariff-related headwinds had caused its business partners to cut back on advertising on the company’s site. A copy of the March 30, 2026, Pinterest complaint can be found here.

Continue Reading Tariff-Related Securities Suit Hits Social Media Platform Pinterest

As the D&O Diary reported earlier this year, the Trump Administration has increasingly turned to the False Claims Act to support policy priorities, including anti-DEI and tariff-related initiatives. The President’s March 16, 2026, Executive Order (EO) may signal that FCA enforcement activity will only continue to accelerate. In particular, the President’s EO establishes a multi-agency “Task Force to Eliminate Fraud,” directing the federal government to “use all available resources” to combat fraud, enhance coordination, and strengthen enforcement across federally funded programs.  

Continue Reading A New Federal Anti-Fraud Task Force and D&O Exposure

Financial news sites were ablaze recently with the news that a co-founder and board member of the data server company Super Micro Computer had been indicted, along with two other company executives, for allegedly conspiring to smuggle high-end Nvidia chips into China, in violation of U.S. export control laws. With news that sensational, and in light of the ensuing stock price drop, it was only a matter of time before plaintiffs’ lawyers would file a securities class action lawsuit. And, sure enough, late last week, a plaintiff shareholder did file a securities suit against the company.

The complaint in the new lawsuit, which can be found here, is interesting in and of itself, relating as it does to the sensational circumstances involved. But the lawsuit is arguably even more interesting for what it represents – that is, as an illustration of the ways that geopolitical issues can – and increasingly are – translating into securities class action lawsuits.

Continue Reading Geopolitics, Export Controls, and D&O Risk

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools and applications has also meant the rise in AI-related infrastructure, such as data centers and power generation support. And just as we have seen the rise of securities litigation relating to companies’ adoption of AI tools and processes, we have also seen securities suits relating to AI infrastructure development.

In the latest example of this kind of AI infrastructure-related litigation, on March 20, 2026, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit against the engine and power systems company Power Solutions International, alleging that the company’s new strategy of providing power generation solutions for AI data centers had fallen short of the company’s representations. A copy of the new complaint against Power Solutions can be found here.

Continue Reading Power Supply Company Hit with AI-Related Securities Suit

In the wake of the February 20, 2026, U.S. Supreme Court decision to invalidate tariffs imposed under the current Administration’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), litigation has been filed by companies seeking tariff refunds and by shareholders alleging securities violations against a company whose operations and financial results were impaired by “tariff headwinds.”   A new category of litigation is also beginning to appear: consumer class actions alleging that companies improperly passed tariff costs on to customers.

Continue Reading Tariff Pass-Through Litigation Expands