A coverage defense that insurers frequently raise is the assertion that the amount for which the insurance payment is sought represents uninsurable disgorgement. Beyond the more general question of whether or not disgorgements are or are not insurable is the more specific question of whether or not the amount for which coverage sought represents disgorgement. In an interesting July 30, 2018 opinion in a case involving the investment firm TIAA-CREF, the Delaware Supreme Court, applying New York law, rejected the firm’s insurer’s argument that the amount the firm paid in settlement of three underlying class action lawsuits represented uninsurable disgorgement. The Court expressly distinguished a series of three decisions in which New York courts had ruled that settlement amounts paid in settlement of regulatory enforcement actions represented uninsurable disgorgement. The Delaware Supreme Court’s July 30, 2018 order can be found here.
Continue Reading Del. Supreme Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement
Guest Post: The Year in Review: 2017 Key D&O Insurance Coverage Decisions
In the following guest post, Jennifer Bergstrom, Esq., Senior Claim Counsel, Hiscox USA, Elan Kandel, Esq. and Jennifer Lewis, Esq. of Bailey Cavalieri take a look at the key D&O insurance coverage decisions of 2017. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article. 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 the authors’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: The Year in Review: 2017 Key D&O Insurance Coverage Decisions
Supreme Court Holds Disgorgement Claims Subject to Five-Year Statute of Limitations
On June 5, 2017, in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a unanimous court, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the five-year statute of limitations applies to claims for disgorgement imposed as a sanction for violation the federal securities laws. The Court rejected the SEC’s argument that the statute of limitations was not applicable to claims for disgorgement. The decision provides greater certainty about the scope of potential liability for parties facing SEC liability. The decision is also important in light of the other securities law statute of limitations case that remains pending on the Court’s docket. The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 5, 2017 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds Disgorgement Claims Subject to Five-Year Statute of Limitations
In Long-Running Bear Stearns Dispute, N.Y. Court Rejects Insurers’ Remaining Coverage Defenses
In what seems like the culminating trial court clash in the long-running effort of J.P. Morgan, as successor in interest to Bear Stearns, to try to obtain insurance coverage for amounts Bear Stearns paid to settle charges that it had facilitated market timing and late trading, New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Charles E. Ramos, applying New York law, on April 17, 2017 entered a summary judgment order (here) comprehensively rejecting the insurers’ various remaining coverage defenses. While further appellate proceedings in the case seem likely, Judge Ramos’s order makes for interesting reading.
Continue Reading In Long-Running Bear Stearns Dispute, N.Y. Court Rejects Insurers’ Remaining Coverage Defenses
Guest Post: Supreme Court to Review Whether Statute of Limitations Applies to SEC Disgorgement Claims
Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in two cases involving the limitations periods under the federal securities laws. One case, as I noted in a post earlier this week, will address the question of whether or not the filing of a securities class action tolls the Securities Act’s statue of repose. The second case, Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission (about which refer here), involves the question of whether or not the five-year statute of limitations applicable to SEC enforcement actions seeking civil penalties applies to disgorgement claims. In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm take a look at the case and the issues it presents, as well as its potential implications. I would like to thank the Paul Weiss attorneys for their willingness to publish their guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Supreme Court to Review Whether Statute of Limitations Applies to SEC Disgorgement Claims
Del. Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement
Insurers frequently contend that their amounts paid as disgorgement are uninsurable as a matter of law. Whether or not this principle is true as a general matter still begs the question of whether or not the amounts for which coverage is sought represent “disgorgement.” In an interesting October 20, 2016 opinion (here), Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden, applying New York law to the issue, held that amounts TIAA-CREF paid in settlement of three underlying class action lawsuits did not represent uninsurable disgorgement. Judge Jurden expressly distinguished a series of decisions in which New York courts had ruled that settlement amounts paid in settlement of regulatory enforcement actions represented uninsurable disgorgement.
Continue Reading Del. Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement
Guest Post: Ninth Circuit Clarifies What Might Trigger SOX 304 Disgorgement
Among the many issues arising under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are questions surrounding disgorgement under Section 304, particularly questions concerning what actions and whose actions might trigger disgorgement. In the following guest post, Bruce Ericson of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm takes a look at the Ninth Circuit’s August 31, 2016 decision in U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jensen in which the appellate court held that the SEC can seek disgorgement from a company’s CEO or CFO even if the triggering restatement did not result from those corporate officers’ misconduct. I would like to thank Bruce 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Bruce’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Ninth Circuit Clarifies What Might Trigger SOX 304 Disgorgement
D&O Insurance: Settlement of Antitrust Claim for Underpaid Wages Not Excluded “Disgorgement”
A settlement of an antitrust lawsuit alleging that a group of hospitals conspired to underpay their nurses did not represent excluded “disgorgement” and therefore was not excluded from coverage under William Beaumont Hospital’s management liability insurance policy, according to a January 16, 2014 Sixth Circuit decision. The opinion will likely be of particular interest to
Guest Post: J.P. Morgan Decision Curtails the Phantom “Restitution Defense” to D&O Coverage
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
“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