In an important decision concerning D&O insurance coverage in connection with failed bank claims, the Tenth Circuit, applying Kansas law, held that a D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage for claims brought by the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers. The Tenth Circuit’s decision arguably contrasts with the Eleventh Circuit’s December 2014 decision in the Community Bank & Trust case (about which refer here), in which the Eleventh Circuit had held that the insured vs. insured exclusion at issue in that case was ambiguous with respect to the question of whether it precluded coverage for FDIC’s failed bank claims. However, the specific language in the exclusion at issue in this case precluding coverage for claims brought a “receiver” of the insured company – language not present in the policy the Eleventh Circuit considered — was a dispositive factor in the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion about the exclusion’s applicability. A copy of the Tenth Circuit’s August 6, 2015 decision can be found here.
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit: D&O Insurance Policy’s Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Precludes Coverage for FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims
Guest Post: Ten Cybersecurity Concerns for Every Board of Directors
It is well understood by now that cyber security is a concern for every organization and that it is an issue on which every company’s board should be focused. But what specifically should boards of directors be worried about and what questions should they be asking? In the following guest post, John Reed Stark and David R. Fontaine take a look at the ten cybersecurity concerns on which every board of directors should be focused. John Reed Stark is President of John Reed Stark Consulting LLC, a data breach response and digital compliance firm. David Fontaine is Executive Vice President, Chief Legal & Administrative Officer and Corporate Secretary of Altegrity, a privately held company that among other entities, owns Kroll’s data breach response services. The authors’ complete biographies appear at the end of the post. This article was previously published on CybersecurityDocket.com, an online global cybersecurity and incident response report, and a division of Docket Media.
I would like to thank the authors’ for their willingness to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest posts 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. The authors’ guest post follows.
*************************************
Every board now knows its company will fall victim to a cyber-attack, and even worse, that the board will need to clean up the mess and superintend the fallout.
Yet cyber-attacks can be extraordinarily complicated and, once identified, demand a host of costly responses. These include digital forensic preservation and investigation, notification of a broad range of third parties and other constituencies,[1] fulfillment of state and federal compliance obligations, potential litigation, engagement with law enforcement, the provision of credit monitoring, crisis management, a communications plan – and the list goes on.
And besides the more predictable workflow, a company is exposed to other even more intangible costs as well, including temporary or even permanent reputational and brand damage;[2] loss of productivity; extended management drag; and a negative impact on employee morale and overall business performance.
So what is the role of a board of directors amid all of this complex and bet-the-company workflow? Corporate directors clearly have a fiduciary duty to understand and oversee cybersecurity, but there is no need for board members (many of whom have limited IT experience) to panic.
Below we compile a list of ten cybersecurity considerations that provide a solid bedrock of inquiry for corporate directors who want to take their cybersecurity oversight and supervision responsibilities seriously.[3] This “cybersecurity top ten list” provides the requisite strategical framework for boards of directors to engage in an intelligent, thoughtful and appropriate supervision of a company’s cybersecurity risks.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Ten Cybersecurity Concerns for Every Board of Directors
Guest Post: Court of Appeals Warns Against Complacency in the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor
One of the most important ways a company can try to avoid potential liability under the federal securities laws is to incorporate precautionary disclosure in its public statements and regulatory filings. However, in a June 23, 2015 decision in In re Harman International Industries Securities Litigation (here), the D.C. Circuit provided a reminder to companies on the importance of keeping their precautionary disclosures up-to-date.
In the following guest post, Bruce A. Ericson and Stacie Kinser of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm take a detailed look at the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion and consider the decision’s practical implications for companies’ precautionary disclosures. Ericson is a partner and Kinser is an associate at the Pillsbury law firm. Ericson is also Managing Partner of Pillsbury’s San Francisco Office, and Co-Head of Pillsbury’s Securities Litigation and Enforcement Team. A version of this article previously was published as a Pillsbury client alert and on Law 360.
I would like to thank Bruce and Stacie for their willingness to publish their article as a guest post on my site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Bruce and Stacie’s guest post.
********************************************
SEC Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful to misstate a material fact (or omit to say something if the omission would render misleading what you do say) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) created a safe harbor for statements that are forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. In a recent decision, the D.C. Circuit revisited the standard for forward-looking statements, and placed special emphasis on the accompanying cautionary language, holding that statements which fail to account for historical facts cannot be meaningful. The opinion should serve as a timely reminder for companies to review and update their cautionary language.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Court of Appeals Warns Against Complacency in the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor
Guest Post: Second Circuit Revives Securities Fraud Class Action Against the Manufacturer of the Keurig Coffeemaker
One of the recurring issues with which federal district courts wrestle is the right way to assess securities complaint allegations based on confidential issues. Another recurring issue has to do with the assessment of trading in company securities by corporate insiders pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 trading plans. A recent decision by Second Circuit addressed both of these issues. The Second Circuit’s opinion in Employees’ Retirement System of Government of the V.I. v. Blanford, Case No. 14-cv-199 (2d Cir. July 24, 2015), can be found here.
In the following guest post, John E. Clabby and Avi R. Kaufman of the Carlton Fields Jorden Burt law firm review the Second Circuit’s opinion and in particular consider the appellate courts consideration of the confidential witness and Rule 10b5-1 trading plan issues. The authors’ bios appear at the end of the post.
I would like to thanks Jack and Avi for their willingness to publish their article on my 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 Jack and Avi’s guest post.
*********************************
Late last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of a shareholder class action against the makers of Keurig coffeemakers and their ubiquitous “K-Cups.” In so doing, the Second Circuit further described the standard for stating claims for securities fraud based on confidential witnesses and in the face of a 10b5-1 trading plan.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Second Circuit Revives Securities Fraud Class Action Against the Manufacturer of the Keurig Coffeemaker
So Why Should Delaware Corporate Law Predominate?
One feature of the U.S. corporate law environment that always strikes outside observers and new initiates as odd is the predominance on the legal landscape of the law of Delaware. The tiny Eastern seaboard state is the second smallest U.S. state by size; only five states are smaller by population, yet its corporate laws outweigh those of any other state. Over half of the U.S. listed companies are incorporated in Delaware. Nearly two thirds of Fortune 500 companies are organized under the laws of Delaware.
Questions about Delaware’s outsized role in the corporate legal world are nothing new. But when the Wall Street Journal runs a front page article questioning Delaware’s role, it might be time to start wondering of Delaware’s predominance might actually be under challenge.
Continue Reading So Why Should Delaware Corporate Law Predominate?
Petrobras Securities Suit: Judge Rakoff Rejects Company’s “Adverse Interest” Argument; Rules Brazilian Investors Must Arbitrate Brazilian Securities Law Claims
In an interesting opinion addressing several of the critical issues in the U.S. securities lawsuit arising out of Petrobras bribery scandal, on July 30, 2015, Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff denied in part and grated in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Among other things, Judge Rakoff rejected the company’s “adverse interest” argument, in which the company had tried to argue that the complicit corporate executives’ knowledge of the bribery scheme and consequent awareness of the misrepresentations of the company’s financial condition could not be attributed to the company. However, Judge Rakoff dismissed the claims asserted under Brazilian law on behalf of shareholders who purchased their Petrobras shares on the Bovespa, the São Paulo Stock exchange, ruling that these shareholders’ claims were subject to the mandatory arbitration clause in the company’s bylaws. A copy of Judge Rakoff’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Petrobras Securities Suit: Judge Rakoff Rejects Company’s “Adverse Interest” Argument; Rules Brazilian Investors Must Arbitrate Brazilian Securities Law Claims
The Developing Phenomenon of Trade Sanction-Related Follow-On Civil Litigation
In the latest example of a case where alleged violations of U.S. trade sanction laws have led to a follow-on civil lawsuit, on July 28, 2015, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit against VASCO Data Security International and certain of its directors and officers. The lawsuit follows the company’s announcement that it has self-reported a possible violation of federal prohibitions against sales of goods to parties in Iran. A copy of the plaintiff’s complaint can be found here.
Continue Reading The Developing Phenomenon of Trade Sanction-Related Follow-On Civil Litigation
Cornerstone Research Releases Midyear Securities Litigation Report
The number of federal securities class action lawsuit filings in the first half of 2015 was above the number of securities suits in the first half of 2014, although below long-term semiannual averages, according to the latest report from Cornerstone Research. The report, entitled “Securities Class Action Filings: 2015 Midyear Assessment,” can be found here. Cornerstone Research’s July 30, 2015 press release about the report can be found here. My own analysis of the first half securities class action lawsuit filings can be found here.
It is very important to note that while the Cornerstone Research study reports a decline in the absolute number of securities class action lawsuit filings, the rate of securities litigation relative to the number of U.S.-listed companies remains elevated compared to historical levels. As discussed below, though the absolute number of filings is down, the likelihood that any given U.S.-listed company will get hit with a securities lawsuit is actually up compared to long-term averages.
Continue Reading Cornerstone Research Releases Midyear Securities Litigation Report
Meanwhile, Back at the FDIC Failed Bank Litigation Ranch
As the global financial crisis has receded further into the past and as other issues have crowded to the top of the agenda, the remaining vestiges from the credit crisis have faded into the background. But though the peak of the crisis is now nearly seven years behind us, the crisis remnants continue to work their way through the legal system. In particular, a large part of the wave of failed bank litigation that the FDIC filed against the former directors and officers of many of the U.S. banks that have failed continues to grind on, as evidenced in the FDIC’s latest professional liability litigation update, which the agency posted on its website on July 28, 2015 (here).
Continue Reading Meanwhile, Back at the FDIC Failed Bank Litigation Ranch
Guest Post: Cyber & Privacy Policy Exclusions: Analyzing Differences, Negotiating Modifications
The exclusions are an important part of any liability insurance policy, but this is particularly true of cyber liability insurance polices. In the following guest post, Robert Bregman, CPCU, MLIS, RPLU, Senior Research Analyst, International Risk Management Institute, Inc., takes a look at the ten of the most common exclusions found in cyber liability and privacy insurance policies. This guest post is an excerpt taken from a longer article entitled “Cyber and Privacy Insurance Coverage” that appeared in the July 2015 edition of The Risk Report, and is copyrighted by IRMI. Learn more about The Risk Report here.
I would like to thank Bob 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 this blog. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Bob’s article.
******************************************************
As is the case with virtually every type of management liability insurance, the true extent of coverage that any given policy provides is a function of its exclusionary language. Accordingly, this article will analyze both the differences and similarities between 10 of the most common exclusions found within cyber and privacy policies. Its goal is to assist the reader in negotiating exclusionary wording that maximizes the scope of coverage a policy will provide in the event of a claim.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Cyber & Privacy Policy Exclusions: Analyzing Differences, Negotiating Modifications