In a June 6, 2016 opinion (here), Middle District of Florida Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, applying Florida law, held that subsequent claims filed in 2011 and 2012 were interrelated with claims first made in 2008, and therefore deemed made at the time of the initial claim. Because the initial claim was filed before the relevant policy incepted, there is, Judge Chappell concluded, no coverage for the claims under the relevant policy.
In reaching these conclusions, Judge Chappell rejected the policyholder’s argument that the policy’s related claim provision conflicted with the policy’s prior and pending litigation provision (which had a May 2003 date), and therefore should be construed against the insurer and disregarded in light of the prior and pending litigation date. Judge Chappell’s opinion quite sensibly and correctly rejects arguments that other courts (applying different jurisdiction’s law) have accepted, as discussed below. A July 22, 2016 post on the Wiley Rein law firm’s Executive Summary Blog about Judge Chappell’s opinion can be found here. Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Prior and Pending Litigation Provisions Do Not Undercut Interrelated Claims Provision
One of the Dodd-Frank Act’s signature features was its creation of potentially massive bounties for whistleblowers that reported financial fraud to the SEC. During the time that the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program has been in place, the agency has made 
The D&O Diary was on assignment in Europe this past week for meetings in Germany, with a brief stopover in Austria before returning home. The picture to the left was taken during our short visit to Salzburg, Austria, which is described below. The trip’s main event was a series of meetings in Munich with industry colleagues at Munich Re. The company’s beautiful Munich headquarters building on Königinstraße, opposite the main entrance of the Englischer Garten, is pictured below. 
he D&O Diary’s readers cover a lot of ground and have an incredible diversity of interests, if the latest round of Frisbee photos is any indication. Readers may recall that in connection with The D&O Diary’s recent 
One of the bedrock principles of our legal system is that criminal liability attaches only to those who act with intent or knowledge – that is, as the legal scholars say, with mens rea (or a guilty mind). The “
There have been few more powerful forces acting recently on the litigation environment around the world than third-party litigation financing. The recent rise of litigation funding, often accompanied by the active involvement of U.S. law firms, is changing the face of litigation in numerous countries. The collective action to be filed against MasterCard later this summer in the U.K. by U.S. law firm Quinn Emanuel, in an initiative being financed by Chicago-based litigation funding firm Gerchen Keller Capital LLC, is the latest and highest profile example of this trends. Indeed, the anticipated MasterCard action in some ways reflects the coming together of many of the important global litigation trends, as discussed below. The Quinn Emanuel law firm’s July 2016 press release about the planned lawsuit can be found 
For some time now, many commentators, including me, have been predicting that cybersecurity-related litigation could become an important part of the D&O litigation environment. And that may yet happen. For now, however, the results in the recent cybersecurity-related cases have been, from the plaintiffs’ perspective, not particularly promising. On July 7, 2016, in the latest of these cases to hit the skids, District of Minnesota Judge Paul Magnuson, in reliance on the report of the special litigation committee appointed to investigate the claims and in the absence of opposition from the plaintiff, granted the motions of the special litigation committee and of the defendants and dismissed the consolidated cybersecurity-related derivative litigation that had been filed against Target Corporation’s board. As discussed below, the plaintiffs’ track record in this type of litigation has been poor, which does raise the question whether this type of litigation will become a significant phenomenon. A copy of Judge Magnuson’s order in the Target Corp. case can be found 
The following post previously appeared as an article in a 