On February 27, 2020, the SEC announced that it had settled charges against the actor Steven Seagal on charges that he had failed to disclose compensation he received for promoting an initial coin offering. In the following guest post, John Reed Stark, President of John Reed Stark Consulting and former Chief of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, takes a look at three important takeaways from the SEC’s order against Seagal. A version of this article originally appeared on Securities Docket. I would like to thank John 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is John’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Takeaways from the SEC’s Fight with Steven Seagal
As discussed at length 
As the policy definition of the term “Claim” has expanded in recent years, the range of incidents and procedures for which the policyholder must provide notice to the insurer has also grown. Among the recent expansions has been the inclusion in many policies of a “subpoena” within the meaning of the term “Claim.” As a result, a policyholder’s failure to notify its insurer of a “subpoena” could imperil coverage for a later related lawsuit. However, as a federal district court recently held, applying New York law, the notice requirement is not triggered if the prior “subpoena” does not meet the professional liability insurance policy’s definition of the term “claim,” and, the court further held that the failure to notify the insurer of the subpoena did not preclude coverage for a later suit. The court’s decision sheds interesting light on a number of frequently recurring coverage issues. 
Over the last few days, as updates about the spread of the coronavirus have dominated the news cycle and roiled financial markets, I have had a number of conversations about whether the emerging coronavirus outbreak could result in D&O claims. There is no doubt that if a 
A deceased small business owner’s widow sued the business’s two other co-owners for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to apply a life insurance payout to the company to buy out her deceased husband’s shares. The two co-owners submitted the claim to their company’s management liability insurer, which denied coverage for the claim, relying in part on the policy’s contractual liability exclusion. The two co-owners sued the insurer seeking coverage. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurer. On February 19, 2020, the Eighth Circuit, applying Kansas law, affirmed the district court in an opinion that, as discussed below, raises some interesting issues. The Eighth Circuit’s opinion can be found 
There were slightly fewer securities class action lawsuits and for fewer total dollars in 2019 compared to 2018, but the median settlement amount was unchanged in 2019 from the year prior, according to the annual securities suit settlement report from Cornerstone Research. The report, which is entitled “Securities Class Action Settlements: 2019 Review and Analysis,” states that the $11.5 million median securities class action settlement in 2019 was 34 percent higher than the 2010-2018 median. The report can be found 
On Tuesday and Wednesday this week, The D&O Diary was at the annual PLUS D&O Symposium at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square in New York. It was another successful conference — and indeed given the state of the D&O marketplace, there was certainly a lot to talk about this year. 
In the following guest post, Jay Knight, Taylor Wirth and Chris Johnson of the Bass, Berry & Sims law firm review the key developments at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during 2019, and consider what to expect in the months ahead. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article. 
Social engineering fraud, or as it is sometimes called, business instruction fraud, has unfortunately become all too common. In many instances, the defrauded companies’ losses are huge. In a recent insurance coverage dispute, the social engineering fraud loss involved was not as large as some of the others have been. Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the relatively small size of the loss, the court concluded that coverage for the company’s loss was precluded by the “voluntary parting” exclusion in its crime policy. As discussed below, there are still some lessons to be drawn from this case. Eastern District of Virginia Judge