Suppose a troubled bank went to renew its D&O insurance in the throes of the financial crisis. Suppose further that the bank’s D&O insurer refused to renew its primary policy without a regulatory exclusion. Suppose that the primary insurer’s renewal binder specified that the renewal was subject to a regulatory exclusion. However, suppose further that when the insurer issued the policy, the insurer omitted the regulatory exclusion. Suppose the insurer noticed the omission of the exclusion a month later – coincidentally, the same day regulators closed the bank and the FDIC was appointed the bank’s receiver – and sent the bank’s insurance agency an endorsement intended to add the omitted exclusion to the policy.
As you might well imagine given these circumstances, when the D&O insurer later denied coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the failed bank’s former directors and officers based on the regulatory exclusion, coverage litigation ensued.
On March 18, 2016, in an interesting opinion that is both very fact-intense and highly dependent on a federal statute specifying what kinds of agreements can be enforced against the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank, Northern District of Georgia Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. denied the insurers’ motions for summary judgment and granted the summary judgment motions of the FDIC, holding that the regulatory exclusion could not be enforced. A copy of Judge Thrash’s March 18, 2016 opinion and order granting the FDIC’s motion can be found here. His separate March 18, 2016 opinion and order granting the individual directors’ and officers’ motion for partial summary judgment can be found here. Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Regulatory Exclusion Listed on Binder but Omitted From Policy Does Not Bar FDIC Claim Coverage
Everyone involved with D&O insurance knows that it is important to keep up with case law developments, in order to appreciate how courts are interpreting and applying various policy terms and conditions. But sometimes there is an additional reason why it is a good to keep up with court decisions – sometimes the cases provide practical lessons in the form of cautionary tales. That was certainly the case in a recent decision in which the Sixth Circuit, applying Kentucky law, affirmed a lower court ruling that late notice of claim precluded coverage under an excess D&O insurance policy. The policyholder had provided timely notice of claim to the primary carrier, but failed to provide notice to the excess carrier until six months after the policy had expired. The court’s conclusion that the late notice precluded coverage under the excess policy may not be surprising, but nevertheless the practical lesson – that is, that notice of claim should be provided to all of the carriers in the D&O insurance program – is an important one, as discussed further below. A copy of the Sixth Circuit’s February 29, 2016 opinion can be found 
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 24, 2015 opinion in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (
In what is by far the largest investor settlement ever under the Dutch collective settlement procedures, several shareholder foundations have reached an agreement to settle the Fortis shareholder claims for a total of €1.204 billion ($1.3 billion). The shareholder foundations’ settlement with Ageas, as Fortis is now known, relates to Fortis’s ill-fated October 2007 participation in the 
The D&O Diary was on assignment in London last week for meetings, a conference, and a reception. The itinerary allowed for some time abroad in the city, and included a weekend stopover in Paris. The main event for the London visit was the annual C5 D&O Liability conference, in which I participated as a panelist. In the picture below, I am standing with my good friends and fellow panelists, Nilam Sharma, of Nilam Sharma Limited; Stephen Reilly of Beale & Company; and Chris Warrior of Hiscox. 
Insurance to protect against breaches of the representations and warranties provisions of mergers and acquisitions purchase agreements is 
, we regularly monitor new lawsuit filings and try to identify trends and patterns. Over the years, we have noted and commented on this blog about many of the trends and patterns we have identified. More than once we have noted the incidence of director and officer liability litigation arising out of environmental issues. We have also noted that D&O litigation often follows after the announcement of FCPA investigations. As discussed below, there has been a flurry of recent filings involving environmental issues. I have also noted below an interesting variant on the FCPA follow-on civil lawsuit pattern.