As the cryptocurrency phenomenon has developed, one of the interesting parts of the story has been the relationship between the digital currency firms and the lawyers that advise them. 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 a particular aspect of this lawyer-client relationship, the question of whether the lawyers should accept cryptocurrency in payment of fees. A version of this article originally appeared on Cybersecurity Docket. I would like to thank John for allowing me to publish his article 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: Why Law Firms Should Never Accept Their Fees in Cryptocurrency
An issue that frequently comes up when companies are in bankruptcy or in other forms of receivership is whether the companies’ D&O insurer can advance payment of individuals’ defense costs over the receiver’s objections. In a recent case, a Northern District of Texas judge has ruled that the individual defendants in an SEC enforcement action are entitled to have their defense expenses advanced notwithstanding the asset stay in the proceeding and despite the receiver’s objections. However the policy’s limits of liability are all but exhausted, which raises its own set of issues, as discussed below. Northern District of Texas Judge Sydney Fitzwater’s June 6, 2018 opinion in the case can be found 
Violations of statutory wage and hour requirements represent a very big problem for corporate employers. Cumulative payouts in private lawsuits and government enforcement for wage payment violations run into the billions, according to a new report from an organization called Good Jobs First. The June 5, 2018 report, entitled “Grand Theft Paycheck: The Large Corporations Shortchanging Their Workers’ Wages” (
A recurring issue under private company D&O insurance policies is the scope of the preclusive effect of the professional services exclusion. This question is particularly important for companies in professional services industries, as just about everything these kinds of companies do arises in some way out of their delivery professional services. In a June 4, 2018 decision in a case presenting these issues, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the professional services exclusion in an educational services company’s D&O insurance policy precluded coverage for a False Claims Act claim. As discussed below, the case raises questions about the purposes of the professional services exclusion and the way it operates to restrict available coverage. The Ninth Circuit’s June 4, 2018 opinion can be found 
One of the recurring themes of financial commentators has been the decline in the number of IPOs compared to prior years. Articles about the dearth of IPOs are something of a staple in the financial press. The decline in the number of IPOs has also drawn the attention of Congress. One of the intended purposes of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 was to try to encourage more companies to go public. A number of other initiatives to try to encourage more IPOs are currently circulating through Congress. The premise behind these various legislative initiatives is that if the regulatory burdens can be eliminated and costs reduced, more companies will go public. Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee recently testified before a Congressional committee about these latest initiatives. His testimony is set out in a May 29, 2018 CLS Blue Sky Blog article entitled “The Irrepresssible Myth That SEC Overregulation Has Chilled IPOs” (
As I have noted in numerous prior posts, the question of whether or not a D&O insurance policy provides coverage for a subpoena is a recurring issue. A recent decision out of the Northern District of Illinois denied the relevant D&O insurers’ motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action in which a policyholder sought coverage for its costs incurred of responding to a DOJ subpoena. The decision is interesting in a number of respects, including in particular the court’s willingness to consider all of the circumstances in concluding that the policy’s Wrongful Act requirement had been met. Northern District of Illinois Judge 
The D&O Diary’s European itinerary continued with a last stop over the Memorial Day weekend in Dubrovnik, Croatia’s famous Adriatic port city. We added a fascinating day trip to Mostar, in Bosnia-Herzegovina. People have been telling me basically my whole life that I needed to visit Dubrovnik. Turns out, they were right. Despite the crowds from the cruise ships in the city’s narrow streets, Dubrovnik is my new favorite place. It also may be the most photogenic city in the world. 
One of the key elements to establish coverage under a directors and officers insurance policy is the existence of claim is for actions undertaken by an insured individual in an insured capacity – that is, in his or her capacity as a director or officer of the company. Things in life are never simple, and lawsuits often allege that corporate director or officer defendants were acting in multiple capacities – that is, both in their capacity as a director or officer and in other capacities as well. These multiple capacity claims often present policy interpretation and coverage issues under D&O insurance policies.
The D&O Diary’s Eastern European sojourn continued last week with a stop in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. Ljubljana may not be familiar to many readers, so here’s what you need to know about the place: Ljubljana is an absolute gem – compact and beautiful. Ljubljana has a great vibe, great wine, and interesting architecture. Ljubljana, my friends, is a seriously cool place.