As I discussed in a recent post (here), in a June 11, 2013 opinion, the New York Court of Appeals held that J.P Morgan (which had acquired Bear Stearns) is not barred from seeking insurance coverage for a $160 million portion of an SEC enforcement action settlement labeled as “disgorgement,” where Bear Stearns&rsquo
Insurer Breaching Duty to Defend Cannot Rely on Policy Exclusions to Disclaim Duty to Indemnify
An insurer that breached its duty to defend may not later rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify the insured for a judgment against him, according to a June 11, 2013 decision from the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals opinion can be found here.
A legal
Federal Insurance Office (Finally) Issues Its First Report
Among its many provisions, the Dodd-Frank created a new Federal Insurance Office within the U.S. Department of Treasury. The Act requires the FIO’s Director to provide a report each year to the President and to Congress “on the insurance industry and any other information deemed relevant by the Director or requested [by a Congressional] Committee.” The
“Disgorgement” Not Precluded from D&O Insurance Coverage Where Firm Did Not Profit from Improper Conduct
In a June 11, 2013 opinion, the New York Court of Appeals held that Bear Stearns is not barred from seeking insurance coverage for a $160 million portion of an SEC enforcement action settlement labeled as “disgorgement,” where Bear Stearns’ customers rather than Bear Stearns itself profited from alleged misconduct. The Court’s opinion reversed the ruling
D&O Insurers Fund Massive, Complicated Bankruptcy Settlement
The bankruptcy context is particularly ripe for D&O claims, and it also represents a particularly difficult claims context for D&O insurers. Anyone with any doubts about just how complicated bankruptcy claims can be will want to take a look at the settlement that the various concerned parties recently reached in the bankruptcy of defunct Florida
Second Circuit: Excess D&O Insurance Not Triggered When Underlying Carriers Are Insolvent, Even If Loss Exceeds Excess Attachment Point
On June 4, 2013, the Second Circuit, in an insurance coverage action involving the defunct Commodore International computer company, affirmed that excess D&O insurance is not triggered even if losses exceed the amount of the underlying insurance, where the underlying amounts have not been paid due to the insolvency of underlying insurers. The Second Circuit’s
Guest Post: Securing the Director and Officers Liability Insurance Lifelines! What Every Director Needs to Know – Before Entering Troubled Waters
At times of trouble, D&O insurance can represent the last line of defense for corporate directors. For that reason, corporate board members rightfully are concerned about their insurance and want reassurance that their company’s policy will provide them the protection they will need. Unfortunately, directors don’t always know the questions to ask and only find
InSights: The Significance and Implications of the $139 Million News Corp. Derivative Suit Settlement
One of the more interesting recent developments in the world of corporate and securities litigation was the $139 million settlement of the News Corp. shareholders derivative suit. Not only is this settlement apparently the largest ever cash settlement of a shareholders derivative suit, but the entire amount of the settlement is to be funded by
D&O Insurance: Providing Coverage for Plaintiffs’ Fee Awards?
A recurring D&O insurance coverage issue is the question of whether or not the D&O insurance policy provides coverage for a plaintiffs’ fee award. The question often arises in the context of a settlement of a shareholders’ derivative suit that includes an agreement to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees as part of the settlement. In
D&O Insurance: Separate Claims Deemed a Single Claim–What Are the Implications?
As I have previously noted (refer for example here), one of the most vexing issues in the D&O claims arena is the questions of whether or not two claims are or are not interrelated. If the two are interrelated, they are deemed a single claim for purposes of determining the claims made date. The