
As I have frequently noted on this blog, most recently here, the question of whether or not the Insured vs. Insured applies to preclude coverage is a frequently recurring D&O insurance coverage issue. In the following guest post, Peter Webster of the Carlton Fields law firm takes a look at a recent Florida intermediate appellate court decision interpreting and applying a D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion. Peter and his Carlton Fields colleague Patricia Thompson represented the insurer in the proceeding. I would like to thank Peter 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Peter’s guest post. Continue Reading Guest Post: Court Holds Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguous, Precluding Coverage
The Securities and Exchange Commission is primarily concerned with public companies and the securities markets in which the shares of public companies trade. However, in a series of recent speeches and presentations as part of what the agency had called the “Silicon Valley Initiative,” the agency made it clear that it is increasingly concerned with private and pre-IPO companies as well, particularly so-called “unicorns” – that is, the private start-up firms with valuations greater than $1 billion. SEC Chairman Mary Jo White highlighted these concerns in a March 31, 2016 speech at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School, a copy of which can be found 
In a March 21, 2016 ruling (
Many issues become complicated in the bankruptcy context. That is certainly true of D&O insurance coverage issues. A recent coverage decision out of the Western District of Michigan illustrates this point. In a March 31, 2016 opinion (
During a
The IPO market in the U.S. is off to a slow start in 2016;
Aggregate and average securities class action lawsuit settlements increased significantly in 2015 compared to the year before, according to the latest annual report from Cornerstone Research. Among reasons for the increase in aggregate settlement amounts is the increase in the absolute number of settlements during the year. The increase in the average settlement amount is largely attributable to an increase in the number of “mega” settlements. While overall and average settlement amounts increased during the year, the number of smaller settlements also increased, and median settlement amounts held steady. The Cornerstone Research report, entitled “Securities Class Action Settlements: 2015 Review and Analysis,” can be found 
Many D&O insurance policies contain specific prior litigation exclusions precluding coverage for claims made during the policy year related to proceedings commenced prior to the policy inception. A question that can arise is the issue of what type of prior proceedings or actions triggers this exclusion. The Second Circuit recently considered whether a Maryland attorney general’s office’s letter threatening that it “may” bring an enforcement action triggered an exclusion precluding coverage for a claim “involving” any prior “demand, suit or other proceeding.” In a March 7, 2016 summary order (