During the bank failure wave that followed the global financial crisis, one of the recurring questions was whether or not the failed banks’ D&O insurance policies’ insured vs. insured exclusion precluded coverage for the FDIC’s liability claims as receiver for the failed bank against the banks’ former directors and officers . As I noted in a post late last year, the general consensus among the federal appellate courts is that the exclusion’s applicability to FDIC-R claims is ambiguous and therefore that the exclusion does not preclude coverage. As I also noted, however, there was an exception to this consensus, reflecting important wording differences sometimes found in the exclusion.
Consistent with this exception to the consensus, on January 10, 2017, the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, held in an unpublished opinion that the applicable D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion was not ambiguous and precluded coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of the failed Security Pacific bank. Unlike the exclusion found in many D&O insurance policies, the policy at issue in the Ninth Circuit’s case specifically precluded coverage for claims brought by any “successor” or “receiver.” The Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Excludes FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims
Among the important parts of any securities class action lawsuit settlement agreement are the so-called “blow provisions,” which provide settling defendants with an option to terminate the settlement agreement if a specified threshold of investors elect to opt out of the settlement. Among other key consideration with respect to blow provisions is that the threshold specified must be carefully structured to allow defendants to terminate or renegotiate the class settlement when opt-outs reach an unacceptable level. In a December 8, 2016 research paper entitled “Considerations for Blow Provisions in Securities Class Action Settlements” (
In the Bard’s timeless words, 
Many readers will recall that just a short time ago companies were actively experimenting to try to incorporate litigation management measures into their corporate bylaws. These efforts led to decisions by Delaware courts upholding both forum selection bylaws (about which refer 
During the more than six years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Morrison v National Australia Bank, the lower courts have worked out a host of issues about how Morrison applies in a variety of circumstances. One issue that has 
While the world of directors’ and officers’ liability is always dynamic, the D&O liability arena was particularly eventful during 2016, with significant implications for what may lie ahead in 2017 – and possibly for years to come. With full awareness that a complete inventory of key 2016 events could actually be much longer, here is a list of the Top Ten D&O stories of 2016. 
Largely driven by a surge in the number of federal court merger objection class action lawsuits, the number of securities class action lawsuit filings during 2016 reached record high levels. The number of filings in 2016 accelerated as the year increased, with a significantly greater number of filings in the year’s second half, compared to the number of filings in the year’s first half. 
According to the company’s December 23, 2016 press release (