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

After the November 2022 debut of ChatGPT, the public commentariat pitched itself into a virtual frenzy declaring AI’s transformative or even catastrophic potential. However, from my perspective, the reality of AI, at least so far, is that, while AI-powered tools are sometimes impressive and occasionally amazing, the AI-generated results are sometimes clunky or non-responsive and often error-filed. I am skeptical of much of the AI hype.

However, over this past weekend, I used a new AI-powered tool that absolutely blew my mind. For the first time ever, I see the sheer raw potential of AI – and yes, I now see its transformative power as well.Continue Reading I Can See the Future. You Can, Too. (Seriously. The Future. Except, You Know, Now.)

Every participant in the world economy currently faces an environment fraught with geopolitical risk, with a war in the Middle East showing a dangerous potential to expand, a war in Ukraine that continues to flame, tensions in the South China Sea, and many other concerns. While companies’ operating risks in these environments in many cases may seem apparent, it may not always be obvious how geopolitical risks can translate into corporate and securities litigation.  A recent securities class action lawsuit filed against technology company Super Micro Computer provides some insight into these litigation risks. Although the lawsuit involves a host of issues, among the principal concerns are allegations that the company misrepresented its compliance with trade control regulations restricting exports to Russia. These allegations illustrate how trade issues, for example, can contribute to securities litigation activity. A copy of the new complaint in the Super Micro Computer case can be found here.Continue Reading Geopolitics and Securities Litigation Risk

The accelerated pace of large corporate bankruptcy filings continued in the last 12 months, as high interest rates, inflation, and other factors continued to take their toll. According to a new report from Cornerstone Research, the number of filings during the second half of 2023 and the first half of 2024 were more than 40% above the long-term annual averages. The report, which is entitled “Trends in Large Corporate Bankruptcies – Midyear 2024 Update,” can be found here. Cornerstone Research’s October 2, 2024, press release about the report can be found here.Continue Reading Cornerstone Research: Large Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Increase

As readers know, since the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the U.S. in March 2020, plaintiffs’ lawsuits have hit dozens of companies with pandemic-related securities suits; indeed, even though we are now well into the fifth year since the outbreak, plaintiffs’ lawyers continue to file COVID-related securities suits. But while these kinds of suits have proven to be popular with plaintiffs’ lawyers, how have they fared? Recent developments in two of these COVID-related securities suits underscore the fact that the results in these cases have been mixed.Continue Reading Yes, But How Have the COVID-19-Related Securities Suits Fared?

Walker Newell
Theresa Milano

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a June 2024 decision, overruled its 40-year-old precedent known as the “Chevron doctrine.” Under Chevron, federal courts were required to defer to administrative agencies when interpreting statutes that were ambiguous. In the following guest post, Walker Newell, Esq., Vice President at Woodruff Sawyer, and Teresa Milano, Esq., also a Vice President at Woodruff Sawyer, consider the Court’s decision and assess its implications. A version of this article previously was published on Woodruff Sawyer’s D&O Notebook. I would like to thank Walker and Teresa for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this 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 the author’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: D&O Risk and Insurance in a Post-Chevron World

In last Thursday’s post, I noted recent case law developments in which federal court breach of the duty of oversight claims against the boards of Wells Fargo and Abbott Laboratories had survived motions to dismiss, at least in part. I also noted that these decisions have important implications for board governance processes and documentation. As I have continued to consider the implications of these recent decisions and other developments concerning the so-called Caremark duties relating to board members’ fiduciary duties of oversight, I developed further thoughts on the steps well-advised boards will want to take to put themselves in a better position to defend themselves against these kinds of claims. I have set out my thought below.Continue Reading Corporate Governance, Board Risk Management, and Duty to Monitor Case Law Developments

Investors and entrepreneurs everywhere are impressed with the potentially transformative promise of artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, AI’s seemingly unlimited promise has also attracted companies and other players who, in order to participate in the current AI wave, overstate their AI capabilities. These kinds of statements have already attracted the attention of plaintiffs’ lawyers and the SEC. Now the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has gotten into the act. The agency has launched a “crackdown on deceptive AI claims and schemes” called Operation AI Comply. In a September 25, 2024, press release (here), the FTC announced five recent law enforcement actions the agency has launched against “operations that use AI hype or sell AI technology that can be used in deceptive and unfair ways.” The agency’s initiative highlights the regulatory scrutiny companies can face with respect to the AI-related operations and marketing.Continue Reading FTC Crackdown Highlights AI-Related Regulatory Risk

As I have noted in several recent posts (most recently here), over the last several months Delaware’s Chancery Court has appeared increasingly skeptical of breach of the duty over oversight claims, seemingly underscoring the oft-stated proposition that so-called Caremark claims are among the most difficult to sustain. However, a recent decision out of the Northern District of California, applying Delaware law but arguably ruling contrary to the recent Delaware Chancery Court trends, sustained at least some of the breach of the duty of oversight claims alleged against Wells Fargo board of director in connection with discriminatory lending allegations against the company. As discussed in detail below, the Wells Fargo decision could have interesting implications for the evolving body of duty of oversight case law.Continue Reading Breach of the Duty of Oversight Claims Against Wells Fargo’s Board Sustained in Part

As I have noted in numerous posts on this site (most recently here), SPAC-related litigation has been a significant factor in the overall volume of corporate and securities litigation filings in recent years. But while I have been attentive to noting the lawsuits as they have been filed, it could be argued that I have not been as dutiful in noting how these cases are being resolved. One recent case resolution – the settlement of the various SPAC-related litigation involving ATI Physical Therapy – is particularly interesting. The court recently approved the settlement of these cases for a total of $31 million. As discussed below, there are several interesting features of these settlements. The court’s approval of the settlements is detailed in a September 24, 2024, Law360 article (here).Continue Reading ATI Physical Therapy Settles SPAC-Related Litigation for $31 Million

In March 2021, to great fanfare, the SEC announced its formation of a Climate and ESG Task Force to “develop initiatives to proactively identify ESG-related misconduct,” as well as to “coordinate the effective use of Division resources, including through the use of sophisticated data analysis to mine and assess information across registrants, to identify potential violations.” Now, it turns out that, much more quietly, the agency has disbanded the Task Force. As first reported in a September 12, 2024, Bloomberg article (here), the SEC shut down the Task Force “within the past few months.”Continue Reading SEC Disbands Climate and ESG Task Force