Deferred prosecution agreements have long been a part of the U.S. criminal enforcement environment, but they are relatively new in the United Kingdom. In addition, as the U.K. has begun to adopt the use of deferred prosecution agreements, it has adopted the agreements to its own system and legal requirements. In the following guest post, Francis Kean of Willis Towers Watson takes a look at a recent U.K. deferred prosecution agreement, relating to bribery allegations involving a U.K.-based subsidiary of a U.S. company. Francis notes a number of interesting features of the agreement and discusses its implications. Francis’s article previously appeared on the Willis Towers Watson Wire blog (here). I would like to thank Francis for his willingness 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Francis’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: U.S. Parent Company Enters U.K.-Style Deferred Prosecution Agreement for Bribery
A standard D&O insurance policy provision specifies that the term “Claim” means, in part, a “written demand for monetary damages or non-monetary relief.” A recurring question that arises under this language is: what exactly is “non-monetary relief”? In a recent case, an Ohio intermediate appellate court considered the question whether a demand for a software audit from a software industry group alleging unauthorized software copying constituted a written demand for non-monetary relief; the court concluded that it did and that it therefore that the demand represented a claim under the applicable D&O policy. The court also considered the applicability of the policy intellectual property (IP) infringement exclusion. A copy of the Ohio Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District’s October 11, 2016 opinion can be found 
It has now been over a year since the U.S. Department of Justice released the so-called 
A couple of items crossed my desk last week that made me think about two exclusions that are sometimes found in D&O insurance policies. In each case, the exclusions, while relatively uncommon, could substantially restrict the insurance coverage available at least in certain circumstances. Precisely because these exclusions are relatively uncommon, it is important to understand the circumstances to which they apply and how they can affect coverage when they are triggered. 
As the rise of collective investor actions has gone global, one of the questions that has arisen is whether a country other than the U.S. would become a preferred forum in which investors might pursue their claims, even investors from outside the forum country. Australia is 
Earlier this year, the SEC 
In an increasingly global economy, questions arising from cross-border activities are an increasingly common part of day-to-day business activities. Among other things, these circumstances mean that companies frequently must contend with the legal requirements in multiple jurisdictions and deal with the associated legal exposures as well. The potential liability issues in turn raise sometimes difficult questions about indemnification and insurance. For those of us in the insurance industry, these cross-border liability, indemnification, and insurance issues can be challenging. 