In numerous public statements, Trump Administration officials have said the Administration intends to use the False Claims Act (FCA) to enforce certain policy priorities. For example, in connection with statements concerning the Administration’s intent to combat “illegal DEI,” officials have declared that corporate DEI policies or practices violating anti-discrimination laws could trigger FCA liability.  There are a number of levels on which potential FCA liability represents a serious corporate liability risk, not least because of the possibility of whistleblowers (including company employees or competitors) launching FCA whistleblower claims. In addition, as discussed below, a recent Southern District of New York ruling highlights how potentially massive FCA liability can be.

Continue Reading More About the Trump Administration and Potential False Claims Act Liability
Burkhard Fassbach

The increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and processes present companies with a host of opportunities and risks. These opportunities and risks in turn create challenges for corporate boards as they try to navigate the changing environment. In the following guest post, Burkhard Fassbach, considers the corporate governance implications AI presents for companies and their boards. Burkhard is a D&O lawyer in private practice in Germany. I would like to thank Burkhard 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 Burkhard’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Navigating AI Governance
Sarah Abrams

There is no doubt that under the current Trump administration, cryptocurrency is enjoying a more hospitable environment. The environment not only affords crypto firms increased business opportunities, such as, for example, with respect to exchange-traded digital assets, but the environment may lend itself to opportunities for D&O insurers as well. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, reviews some of the details about the current crypto environment, as well as the opportunities and risks that the environment may represent for D&O insurers. 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:  Crypto-Verse D&O Opportunity

In recent months, a debate has raged about whether Delaware companies should up stakes and reincorporate elsewhere, particularly Nevada or Texas. While this debate has sparked a great deal of discussion, and while a few high-profile companies have made the move, by and large the number of companies actually moving remained small. But now in a potentially significant development for the whole DExit topic, Silicon Valley VC firm Andreesen Horowitz has announced that it is leaving Delaware for Nevada, and, perhaps event more significantly, encouraging its portfolio companies to incorporate in Nevada as well. As discussed below, this development could represent an inflection point in the DExit debate, with potential significance for the corporate litigation going forward.

Continue Reading Did the DExit Debate Just Hit an Inflection Point?
Sarah Abrams

The Trump administration, through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), has made it clear that it will prioritize enforcement against false or misleading “Made in USA” claims. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the FTC’s Made in USA enforcement position, and considers the potential D&O insurance 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 the 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: Made in America

Insurance practitioners know that policy language matters. Insurance coverage advocates are also well aware that the application of the canons of construction can significantly affect contested coverage matters. These two considerations came together in a recent Fifth Circuit opinion, in which the placement of a single word — the word “the” — proved to be outcome determinative. The appellate court’s decision so clearly presents these fundamental policy interpretation issues, it should be mandatory reading for anyone involved in insurance policy wording issues. A copy of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion can be found here. A July 10, 2025 LinkedIn post about the decision by Geoffrey Fehling of the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm can be found here.

Continue Reading Does the Word “The” Change an Exclusion’s Meaning?
Umesh Pratapa

The typical U.S. D&O insurance policy does not provide coverage for fines and penalties. The standard definition of Loss in U.S. D&O insurance policies provides that Loss does not include “fines, penalties, and matters deemed uninsurable under applicable law.” The situation may be different in some countries outside the U.S. In the following guest post, Umesh Pratapa, considers the question of the extent to which D&O policies may under certain circumstances provide coverage for fines and penalties. Umesh is the Author of the handbook on D&O liability insurance published by Institute of Directors (IOD), India, and Consultant – liability insurance. I would like to thank Umesh 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 Umesh’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: D&O Insurance – Coverage for Penalties: New Insights from Recent Australian Judgement

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and processes are becoming increasingly pervasive in many industry sectors and in many phases of business. AI use is also spreading to corporate processes and functions. For example, as I recently noted, some companies many be using AI tools to draft the MD&A in their periodic reports. And, at least according to a recent post in the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance by lawyers from the Debevoise law firm, some corporate boards may be “adopting AI meeting tools to assist with the drafting of board and committee minutes.” As the memo’s authors note, board adoption of AI tools for these purposes may offer some benefits, but the use of the tools also entails risk, which board members will want to take into account in using the tools.

The June 23, 2025, law firm memo, entitled “AI Can Draft Board Minutes – But Should It? Considerations for Public Companies,” can be found here.

Continue Reading AI Tools in the Boardroom
Sarah Abrams

One of the standard D&O policy exclusions is the Insured vs. Insured (IvI) Exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. This exclusion is usually subject to a number of coverage carve-backs preserving coverage for certain kinds of claims that would otherwise be excluded. Many exclusions include carve backs for dilution claims (the Dilution Claims Exception), a provision that is not often tested. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the larger context of AI regulation, takes a look at a recent case interpreting and apply in the Dilution Claims Exception. 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: Diluting I v I

The costs companies incur in responding to an SEC investigation can be substantial. Companies incurring these kinds of costs are sometimes surprised to learn that their D&O insurance policies may not, and likely will not, cover these kinds of costs, at least under most insurer’s base policy forms.

A recent Delaware Superior Court decision involved a company’s attempt to secure coverage for the costs it incurred in responding to an SEC investigation after the company had agreed to toll the statute of limitations. The Court found that while the tolling request was a Claim within the meaning of the company’s policy, it was not a Securities Claim, as would be required in order for the policy’s entity coverage to be triggered. As discussed below, the Court’s decision provides an opportunity to think about the optional entity investigative cost coverage extension. A copy of the Delaware Superior Court’s June 30, 2025, opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Tolling Agreement Is a Claim, But Not a Securities Claim