Over the last several days, I have published several posts discussing important insurance developments relating to social engineering fraud, sometimes called payment instruction fraud. In the following guest post, Peter S. Selvin of the TroyGould PC law firm takes a detailed look at one of these recent decisions, the July 2017 decision in the Southern District of New York involving Medidata (discussed here), and compares it to the subsequent American Tooling Center decision out of the Eastern District of Michigan (discussed here). A version of this article previously appeared in the San Francisco Daily Journal. I would like to thank Peter for his willingness to publish his 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 Peter’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Groundbreaking Cyber Insurance Decision
One of the fundamental principles on which our system of securities regulation is based is the importance of disclosure. The system is built on the notion that companies must disclose certain basic information about their operations and performance so that investors can make informed investment decisions. While the disclosures required are a matter of regulation and statute, investors’ and regulators’ expectations about what must be disclosed changes over time. Signs are that disclosure expectations — and as a result disclosure practices — are changing rapidly in two particular areas: cybersecurity and climate change. 
In the latest decision in which class action consumer data breach claimants have been successful in establishing the requisite standing to pursue their claims, on August 1, 2017, the D.C. Circuit held that the claimants’ risk of future harm is sufficient to meet Article III standing requirements. This decision is the latest in a growing number of federal circuit decisions finding that data breach claimants have satisfied standing requirements, but it also deepens a circuit split that could mean eventual U.S. Supreme Court review of the issue. The D.C. Circuit’s August 1 opinion in the Attias v. Care First case can be found 
Much has been written about the explosive growth in merger objection litigation in recent years. A less common but increasingly frequent type of merger-related litigation is appraisal rights litigation. In these types of lawsuits an investor exercises his or her statutory right for a judicial determination of the value of his or her stock. These kinds of cases present their own sets of issues and challenges.
Just days after a Southern District of New York judge ruled in the Medidata Solutions decision that the Computer Fraud section of a commercial crime policy covered losses from social engineering fraud (as I discussed in a 
Those of us immersed in the world of directors and officers could not imagine becoming involved in any sort of business organization without the protection and benefit of D&O insurance. Just the same, I have fairly regular conversations with officials and executives at closely held companies who see no need for the insurance, on their belief that without outside investors, their company faces no risk of incurring a D&O claim. However, long experience tells me that D&O insurance should be a part of every organization’s insurance program, regardless of its ownership. 
Securities class action lawsuits were filed at a record pace in the first half of 2017, according to the latest report from Cornerstone Research. While the surge in securities suit filings is due in part to the rise of federal court merger objection lawsuit filings, both traditional securities suit filings and M&A filings were “at historic levels.” The Report, jointly prepared by Cornerstone Research in conjunction with the Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and entitled “Securities Class Action Filings – 2017 Mid-Year Assessment,” can be found 
One of the more vexing threats in the current business environment is the rise of “social engineering fraud” or “payment instruction fraud.” In these schemes scammers using official-seeming email communications induce company employees to transfer company funds to the imposters’ account. Among the many issues involved when these kinds of scams occur is the question of insurance coverage for the loss. In many instances, insurers take the position that because the schemes do not involve a “hacking” of the company’s systems and because the actual funds transfers are voluntary, the loss of funds is not covered under commercial crime policies.