On September 30, 2009, in a decision that will be widely discussed both because of the high profile figures involved as well as because of the outcome, Southern District of New York Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled (here) that the statute of limitations bars the action brought by the Milberg law firm’s professional
D&O Insurance: Additional Consideration, “Loss,” and the “Bump Up” Exclusion
One of the recurring D&O insurance issues is the question of policy coverage for additional acquisition consideration paid to an acquired companies’ shareholders – so-called "bump up" claims. In an interesting and colorfully written September 28, 2009 opinion (here) that insurers undoubtedly will cite profusely in future disputes of this kind, District of Massachusetts
Towers Perrin Releases 2008 D&O Survey Report: Some Comments
On September 9, 2009, Towers Perrin released its report of the firm’s 2008 Survey of Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Purchasing Trends, which can be accessed here. Towers Perrin’s anticipated annual report again this year will undoubtedly be widely read throughout the D&O insurance industry. The report is a good resource and it
What to Watch Now in the World of D&O
Each fall for the last three years I have taken a look at the current trends and hot topics in the world of D&O. There are of course the perennial topics that always remain important. However, this overview is intended to address the most significant concerns of current interest for D&O insurance professionals and their
D&O Insurer “Cut Out” of Settlement Process May Reasonably Withhold Consent
In prior posts (refer here), I have observed that the D&O insurer’s consent to settlement really is required. An August 10, 2009 decision by the Delaware Supreme Court (here) confirms that not only is the insurer’s consent required, but the D&O insurer may under certain circumstances reasonably withhold its consent to settlement. The
Stanford Financial Receiver Seeks D&O Insurance Proceeds
In a move that recapitulates a classic dispute that has been brewing in bankruptcy court for years, the Stanford Financial Group receiver has asserted that the proceeds of Stanford’s D&O insurance policies are "receivership assets" and that his right to the proceeds "supersedes" the rights of insureds under the policy. Moreover, he has specifically threatened
D&O Insurance: Bankruptcy and the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion
Claims arising out of corporate bankruptcy represent a significant stress test for directors’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage. Among other frequently recurring issues are questions whether post-bankruptcy claims against the bankrupt company’s directors and officers run afoul of the Insured vs. Insured (I v. I) exclusion found in most D&O insurance policies.
In a
New German Statutory D&O Insurance Requirements
A recent German legislative action creates some interesting requirements for and limitations upon insurance for German corporate director liability. These legislative changes are designed to try to ensure greater director exposure to personal liability, as a deterrent to corporate misconduct. However, the legislative changes are susceptible to circumventions that may limit their intended effects.
D&O Insurance and Non-Officer Directors
One of the most striking things I have found when talking to corporate officials about D&O insurance is how different the conversation can be when talking to non-officer directors compared to talking to corporate officers. Without meaning to over-generalize, the two groups sometimes have different questions and concerns. And indeed there are very good reasons
D&O Insurance: Cost vs. Value
Most reasonably sophisticated consumers understand that the cheapest running shoes may be no bargain, that the least expensive cellular plan may have big gaps, and that selecting legal counsel based on which attorney charges the least is fraught with peril. Yet when it comes to D&O insurance, these same buyers are often only concerned with