Coverage for the corporate entity under public company D&O insurance policies is limited to claims that constitute “Securities Claims” as that term is defined in the policy. A coverage dispute between Calamos Asset Management and its D&O insurer involved the question of whether an underlying breach of fiduciary duty claims alleged in connection with the company’s take-private tender offer meet the policy’s “Securities Claim” definition.
In a February 19, 2021 opinion (here), District of Delaware Judge Maryellen Noreika, applying Delaware law, ruled that the breach of fiduciary duty claims do not fall with the policy’s definition of “Securities Claim” and granted summary judgment for the insurer, largely in reliance on the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in the Verizon case, notwithstanding the fact that the definition of the term “Securities Claim” in the Calamos dispute express referred to the “common law,” while the definition in the Verizon dispute did not.
Continue Reading Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Not a “Securities Claim” Under D&O Policy
One of the recurring D&O insurance issues is whether an insurer seeking to deny coverage for a claim based on the insured’s late provision of notice must show that the late notice prejudiced the insurer. In the following guest post, Peter Selvin, the chair of the Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department at Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP, takes a look at a recent federal district court ruling that supports policyholder’s arguments that the notice-prejudice rule applies under certain circumstances. A version of this article previously was published in the LA Daily Journal. I would like to thank Peter for allowing me publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Peter’s article.
Most D&O insurance policies specify that the insurer’s advance written consent is required for claim settlement, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. A frequent insurance coverage battleground issue is whether an insurer’s decision to withhold consent is or is not unreasonable. In the long-running insurance coverage dispute between for-profit education firm Apollo Education Group and its D&O insurer, Apollo contends that the insurer’s refusal to consent to Apollo’s $13.125 settlement of an options backdating-related securities suit was unreasonable. The coverage dispute eventually made its way to the Ninth Circuit, which certified a question of law to the Arizona Supreme Court on the question of the standard of law to be applied to the consent to settlement provision.
Commercial enterprises sometimes are organized in complex structures consisting of multiple, legally separate legal entities. The legal separation between the various entities can be significant in a variety of ways. One particular context within which these separate legal identities can be very important is in the D&O insurance context, as the insurance may be structured to apply to specified entities (and therefore not to others).
In the following guest post, Francis Kean provides us with ten reasons to be cheerful notwithstanding the current D&O insurance market. Francis is a Partner, Financial Lines, at McGill and Partners. A version of this article previously was published Insurance Day. I would like to thank Francis for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Francis’s article.
As I have noted in prior posts (most recently 
In a closely watched insurance coverage dispute, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a lower court rulings and held that an appraisal proceeding is not a “Securities Claim” within the meaning of the defendant company’s D&O insurance policy and therefore that the proceeding is not a covered claim under the policy. Because it ruled there is no coverage, the Court did not address the other more controversial aspects of the lower court’s ruling. The Supreme Court’s October 23, 2020 opinion in In re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals can be found 
In a recent decision following a bench trial, a California state court judge held that a D&O insurance policy’s “bump up” exclusion applies to preclude coverage for the settlement of claims by shareholders of the acquired company who claimed they had received inadequate consideration for their acquired shares. The judge’s decision, which reflected her reading of the specific exclusionary language involved as well as the testimony of several witnesses about the meaning of the provision, is interesting in that the “bump up” exclusion fights usually involve claims against the acquirer for paying inadequate consideration, not claims that the acquired company’s investors received inadequate consideration.
