
In prior posts, I have noted the series of U.S. securities class action lawsuits that have been filed recently against publicly traded companies in the cannabis business, including several Canadian companies. In the following guest post, Samantha Wu of the Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn law firm in Toronto provides an overview of the unique exposures that directors and officers of Canadian cannabis companies face. A version of this article previously was published on the law firm’s website (here). I would like to thank Sam 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sam’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Canadian Cannabis Companies’ Directors and Officers Face Unique Exposures


Under claims made insurance policies, policyholders must provide timely notice of claim to their insurers in order to trigger coverage. Late notice is among the most common reasons that insurers deny coverage for claims. In order to try to avoid a coverage denial for late notice, policyholders have tried to argue that late notice should not preclude coverage where the policyholder renewed the coverage and where successive policies with the same insurer are in place. In a recent decision, an Ohio appellate court, applying Ohio law, rejected a policyholder’s attempt to rely on this kind of continuity of coverage argument. The court’s decision raises some interesting issues, as discussed below. 
Earlier this week, I published
In a lengthy and detailed post-trial opinion, New York (New York County) Supreme Court Justice
As I have noted in
In 