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
Lucas Roberts

Claims made insurance policies generally allow for the provision of notice of potential claim. However, for which insureds is the notice effective? In the following guest post, Lucas Roberts, Wholesale Broker, Anzen Insurance Solutions, reviews a recent court decision discussing these notice-related issues. I would like to thank Lucas 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Lucas’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Wait, YOU Also Wanted Coverage? Why Didn’t You Say So!

Sarah Abrams

The incidence of AI-related securities litigation is by this point well-established. But as the laws, regulations, and legal environment relating to AI have continued to evolve, so too has the AI-related litigation risk. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, examines the recent settlement of the securities class action litigation involving Snapchat and considers its potential implicationd for future AI-related litigation risk. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her 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 Sarah’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Will the Snapchat Settlement Become a Benchmark For AI-Related Risk?

Class actions are of course much more a feature of the litigation scene in the U.S. than in the U.K, but things have been changing in recent years. The most significant initial change in direction toward collective actions in the U.K. was the adoption several years ago of “opt-out” actions in the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal proceedings. More recently, through its courts’ use of group litigation orders (GLOs), there has been a “surge in mass claims” in the U.K., according to a recent law memo. The result has been, according to the October 13, 2025, memo from the Skadden law firm, a “dramatic transformation” over the past decade in the U.K. of its “collective redress landscape.” The memo, which is entitled “Class Actions by the Backdoor? The Evolving Landscape of Group Litigation in the U.K,” can be found here.Continue Reading “Backdoor Class Actions”: Proliferating U.K. Collective Action Proceedings

As the story developed last month surrounding the spectacular collapse of auto-parts giant First Brands Group, I kept waiting for the lawsuit. The tale of the CEO’s supposed lavish personal spending, as well as the company’s massive debt and apparently missing funds, seemed scripted for a securities class action complaint. The securities suit I thought surely was coming never materialized – because, it turns out, Patrick James, the company’s founder and CEO, was also its sole equity owner. So, no shareholder suit. Which is not to say that there would never be a lawsuit.

Indeed, last week, the perhaps inevitable lawsuit did materialize, but not as a securities suit; rather, the lawsuit is in the form of an adversary proceeding against the former CEO and his affiliated entities brought by the company as debtor in its bankruptcy proceeding. And the complaint? It’s a doozy. And as discussed below, it also raises some interesting D&O insurance coverage questions as well.Continue Reading First Brands Sues Its Founder for “Grievous Misconduct”

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the legal case in which the claimants are challenging the constitutionality of President Trump’s tariffs. While we await the Court’s decision in the case, the tariffs remain in place, with consequences both for the global economy and for individual businesses. In the latest example of the ways in which these consequences can translate into tariff-related securities litigation, a plaintiff shareholder has sued used car retailer CarMax, alleging that the company tried to portray the quarterly sales surge that preceded the tariffs’ impact as being due to longer-term company advantages rather than tariff-motivated consumer behavior. A copy of the new CarMax complaint can be found here.Continue Reading CarMax Hit with Tariff-Related Securities Suit

Teresa Milano
Doug Greene

Observers of securities class action litigation know that virtually every securities suit that survives dismissal ultimately settles. Very few securities suit go to trial. In the following guest post, Teresa Milano, SVP, Lockton, and Doug Green, Partner, BakerHostetler, suggest that securities litigation overall would benefit if more cases were tested on the merits. The authors provide suggestions of how the goal of merits-based case resolutions might be realized. I would like to thank Teresa and Doug 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 authors’ article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Changing the Mindset About Securities Class Actions

Sarah Abrams

Side A coverage under the typical D&O insurance policy provides what could be a last line of protection of individual executives in certain circumstance. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, analyses a recent Delaware shareholder derivative lawsuit to consider the circumstances in which Side A coverage may operate to protect corporate executives. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors in topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: A Side: A Coverage Scenario

AI-related news dominates the business pages these days. Many companies increasingly are adapting their business processes to incorporate AI-related operations, and an growing number of companies are adjusting their business strategies to accommodate AI. While these changes present a host of opportunities, they also involve risks. A securities lawsuit recently filed against the integrated circuit (IC) design software company Synopsys shows how these kinds of AI-related risks can translate into securities litigation. In the complaint, the company is alleged to have understated the additional customization requirements that its customers’ AI-adapted operations would entail. A copy of the October 31, 2025, complaint can be found here.Continue Reading AI-Related Securities Suit Filed Against IC Design Software Firm

Sarah Abrams

Choice of law considerations in litigation can sometimes be outcome determinative. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams takes a look at a distinctive statutory defense that may be available to derivative litigation defendants when Massachusetts law applies and considers the D&O insurance underwriting implications. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her 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 Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Massachusetts as a Safe Harbor from Derivative Suits

One of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues is the question of the extent of the preclusive effect of professional services exclusions. These issues can be particularly acute in connection with service businesses, as just about every activity of these businesses involves their performance of services in some way. In a recent Northern District of Ohio decision, the Court, applying Ohio law, rejected an insurer’s attempt to extend an exclusion to preclude coverage for all of the activities alleged in the underlying lawsuit, saying that such an interpretation is not only inconsistent with the underlying allegations but also would impermissibly render coverage under the policy illusory. A copy of the court’s June 24, 2025, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Court Rejects Overly Broad Application of Services Exclusion