Photo of Kevin LaCroix

Kevin LaCroix

Subscribe to Kevin LaCroix's Posts

Kevin M. LaCroix is an attorney and Executive Vice President, RT ProExec, a division of RT Specialty. RT ProExec is an insurance intermediary focused exclusively on management liability issues.

Follow:Read more about Kevin LaCroixKevin's Linkedin ProfileKevin's Twitter Profile

Mike%20Biles[1]
Michael J. Biles
Just about every publicly traded company and most private companies carry D&O insurance. It is just common sense in the current litigious environment. But while most companies recognize the need for D&O insurance, not every company maximizes its investment when purchasing the insurance. In the following guest post, Michael J. Biles, a partner in the Securities Litigation Group at King & Spalding LLP, takes a look based on his perspective as a securities litigator at ten common mistakes many companies make when buying their D&O insurance. In addition to the points Mike makes in his guest post, I would add that companies are likely to avoid these and other common mistakes if they take the time to ensure that the have enlisted the assistance of a knowledgeable and experienced broker in connection with their purchase of D&O insurance. 

.
I would like to thank Mike for his willingness to publish his article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to readers of the blog. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Mike’s guest post.

************************************************* 

D&O insurance is a must-have for every public company.  The risks and costs of private lawsuits or government investigations are too great for any rational person to serve as an officer or director of a company without a solid D&O insurance policy.  After nearly twenty years of defending officers and directors in securities litigation, I have experienced firsthand the hardship caused by inadequate or inappropriate D&O insurance.  Contrary to public perception, most officers and directors of public companies are not extraordinarily wealthy – the cost of financing the defense of a securities class action, derivative lawsuit or government litigation (much less of funding a settlement) is too great to bear for most individuals without D&O insurance.

The following are the top ten mistakes that I’ve seen companies make in selecting D&O insurance.  Although some of these mistakes concern complex insurance coverage issues, I’ve prepared this article for the non-lawyer, stripped of legalese, so that officers and directors can discuss these issues with their insurance brokers to avoid these mistakes.  D&O insurance is a competitive industry.  While the core language of a standard D&O policy is generally fixed, companies can, and often do, negotiate better terms in endorsements to the policy. 
Continue Reading Guest Post: Ten Mistakes Companies Make When Buying D&O Insurance –A Securities Litigator’s Perspective

supct2014In its March 2015 decision in the Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (here), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an issuer may be liable for opinions set forth in a registration statement if the issuer did not genuinely hold the stated opinion, or if the issuer failed to disclose material facts relating to the foundation for the opinion, as discussed here. Because the Omnicare decision was made with respect to claims under the liability provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, one of the questions that arose following the Court’s decision was whether and to what extent the principles the Court enunciated are applicable to securities fraud actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In an interesting article entitled “False Statements of Belief as Securities Fraud” (here), University of Idaho Law Professor Wendy Gerwick Couture takes a look at these questions and argues that the Omnicare’s holding with respect to statements of opinion analytically should apply equally to securities fraud claims under Section 10 of the ’34 Act as to prospectus liability claims under Section 11 of the ’33 Act. A summary version of Professor Couture’s article appeared on October 28, 2015 on the CLS Blue Sky Blog (here).  
Continue Reading Does the Omnicare’s Holding Regarding Opinion Apply to Securities Fraud Claims?

eleventh cuircuit sealIn an unpublished October 5, 2015 opinion (here), the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, held that a D&O insurance policy’s contractual liability exclusion precluded coverage for negligence claims asserted against persons insured under the policy. The contract exclusion was written with a broad “based upon, arising out of” preamble wording. As discussed below, the decision highlights concerns about the use of the broad preamble in D&O insurance policies’ contractual liability exclusion. An October 28, 2015 post on the Wiley Rein law firm’s Executive Summary Blog about the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Contractual Liability Exclusion Applied to Preclude Coverage for Negligence Claim

german flagIn recent years, litigation financing has become an increasingly important –albeit controversial – part of the litigation landscape. The ongoing evolution of litigation financing now appears to have taken a significant next step, in the form of a formal, public partnership between the litigation funding firm and a plaintiffs’ law firm. On October 28, 2015, the litigation funding firm Burford Capital and the plaintiffs’ competition law firm Hausfield issued a joint press release (here) in which the two firms announced their entry into a €30 million agreement to fund claims in Germany and to allow the law firm to open a Berlin office.
Continue Reading The Next Step in Litigation Financing?

seclogoOn October 30, 2015, by a 3-1 vote, the SEC adopted final rules to permitting small companies to raise funds by selling shares to the investing public through crowdfunding offerings conducted on Internet fundraising portals. In this long-awaited vote, which represented the last remaining significant rulemaking procedure required by the Jumpstart our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012, the agency finally authorized, in slightly modified form, the rules it had first proposed in October 2013. The agency’s October 30, 2015 press release announcing its action and describing the final rules can be found here. The 686-page adopting release can be found here. 
Continue Reading SEC Adopts Final Crowdfunding Rules

daumierOne of the legal issues that attracts continuous  vigorous debate is the question of whether or not class actions in general, and securities class actions in particular, produce a social benefit sufficient to justify their sometimes enormous costs. This question receives an interesting and readable analysis in an article in the November 19, 2015 issue of The New York Review of Books entitled “The Cure for Corporate Wrongdoing: Class Actions vs. Individual Prosecutions” (here) in which Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff reviews Columbia Law Professor John Coffee’s new book, Entrepreneurial Litigation: Its Rise, Fall, and Future (here).  While Judge Rakoff provides his (quite positive) assessment of Professor Coffee’s book, he also  delivers his own analysis of the issues Professor Coffee raises, as well as of the prescriptions Professor Coffee proposes for the class action defects he has identified, as discussed below.
Continue Reading Class Action Litigation, Professor Coffee, and Judge Rakoff

cflagLong-time readers of this blog will recall that in 2011, there was a rash of U.S. securities class action lawsuits filed against U.S.-listed Chinese companies. Many of these companies had obtained their U.S.-listings by way of a reverse merger with a U.S.-listed public shell. The 39 securities suits filed in 2011 against U.S.-listed Chinese companies represented 18% of all securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. that year. While the number of lawsuit filed against Chinese reverse-merger companies has abated since the peak in 2011, U.S. securities lawsuits continue to be filed against Chinese companies at a significant rate.
Continue Reading Uptick in Securities Suits Against U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies

nystateDelaware’s courts have recently made it clear that the days where they would routinely approve disclosure-only settlements in merger objection lawsuits may be over (as discussed here). It now appears that other states also are no longer willing to approve these kinds of settlements. In a blistering October 23, 2015 opinion (here), New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Charles E. Ramos refused to approve the disclosure-only settlement proposed in the Allied Healthcare merger objection lawsuit, saying that courts’ willingness to approve these kinds of settlements “reflects poorly on the profession and on those courts that, from time to time, have approved these settlements.”
Continue Reading New York Court Pans Merger Objection Lawsuit Disclosure-Only Settlement

nyulaw2On October 27, 2015, Cornerstone Research in conjunction with the New York University Pollock Center for Law & Business and the Leonard N. Stern School of Business to launch the Securities Enforcement Database (SEED). As described in the organizations’ joint October 27, 2015 press release (here), the database will track record and information relating to SEC enforcement actions filed against public companies. The SEED database, which can be found here, will facilitate the analysis of and reporting of SEC enforcement actions through regular updates of new filings and settlement information relating to ongoing enforcement action.
Continue Reading New SEC Enforcement Action Database from NYU and Cornerstone Research

ninthcircuitFor purposes of determining the scienter of a corporate entity defendant under the federal securities laws, a company’s executives’ knowledge generally is imputed to company. There is an exception to these general principles – the “adverse interest exception” – which provides that an executive’s knowledge will not be imputed to the company if the executive acted for his or her own purposes and contrary to the interests of the company. There is also an exception to the exception, which provides further that a rogue executive’s knowledge will nevertheless be imputed to the company when an innocent third-party has relied on the executive’s representations made with apparent authority.

In an October 23, 2015 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit applied these principles to reverse the district court’s dismissal of the ChinaCast Education Corp. securities class action lawsuit, holding that the knowledge of the company’s CEO, who had embezzled funds and mislead investors through omissions and false statements, could be imputed to the company for purposes of innocent third-party investors’ claims.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Embezzler Executive’s Knowledge Can Be Imputed to Company in Innocent Third Party-Filed Securities Suit