One of the most noteworthy recent developments in the litigation arena has been the rise of litigation funding. Litigation funding is well-established in Australia and Canada, and it is becoming increasingly important elsewhere. Among the largest litigation funding firms is Burford Capital, which is a publicly traded company with offices in London and New York and whose securities trade on the London Stock Exchange. The company’s most recent interim financial results can be found here. Christopher Bogart, who previously was EVP and General Counsel of Time Warner and whose background includes a stint at the Cravath law firm, is the company’s CEO. In the following post, Chris answers my questions about litigation funding and about his firm. My questions appear in italics, followed by Chris’s answers in plain text. I would like to thank Chris for his willingness to participate in this Q&A. Continue Reading Interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Litigation Funding Firm Burford Capital
Readers continue to send in their pictures taken with their Tenth Anniversary edition D&O Diary Frisbees. The Frisbee Photos have been taken in locations both far and near, with the most recent collection including a very heavy representation of pictures taken at beaches or in bars, as well as with kids and dogs. Readers will recall that in connection with The D&O Diary’s recent 
The SEC has long made it clear that it intends to protect whistleblowers and to suppress activities it believes will have the effect of discouraging whistleblower activity. The agency recently launched enforcement actions against companies that had incorporated various waivers in employee severance agreements that discouraged employees from reporting possible securities law violations to the SEC. The agency’s actions shows that the agency is prepared to actively target corporate actions the agency believe may suppress the whistleblowing process. 
The SEC’s enforcement activity so far this fiscal year trails the record levels in the 2015 fiscal year. According to a recent report from Cornerstone Research (
As we approach what will be the eighth anniversary of the peak of the global financial crisis, many of the effects of the crisis have subsided. But while the crisis and many of the worst of its effects have largely faded into the past, a number of litigated matters related to the crisis have continued to grind through the courts. Among other things, the wave of failed bank lawsuits – that is, lawsuits filed by the FDIC against the former directors and officers of banks that failed in the wake of the crisis – has continued to roll along. However, at this point, it looks as if the failed bank litigation has just about played out. Now that the litigation is winding down, it may be time take a retrospective look at the failed bank litigation wave. 
The many travels of readers’ D&O Diary Tenth Anniversary Frisbees have continued, with stops in places both familiar and remote. The results are a variety of Frisbee photos taken on location in places both far and wide and accompanied by everything from beer to champagne. Readers will recall that in connection with The D&O Diary’s recent 
Cornerstone Research’s 
Among the most frequently recurring D&O insurance coverage issues is the question of the carrier’s obligation to pay for costs incurred in connection with an informal SEC investigation. Indeed over the years, numerous policy revisions have been adopted in various forms by various carriers to address certain aspects of this issue. Yet the issues continue to arise, as shown most recently in District of Colorado Judge Robert E. Blackburn’s August 4, 2016 opinion (
As I have noted in prior posts (most recently 
Individuals serving as corporate officers take on significant potential liability exposures in the course of their performance of their duties. As a result, most companies indemnify their officers for liabilities incurred while acting as corporate officers. A recurring issue is the question of who is entitled to indemnification. In particular, a particular issue that courts have grappled with recently is the question of whether an individual with the title of “Vice President” is entitled to indemnification.