D&O insurance

Subscribe to D&O insurance via RSS

The D&O insurance implications of M&A litigation often extend beyond claims against the company and its directors and officers. When financial advisers are drawn into transaction-related litigation, companies that have agreed to indemnify them may be required to reimburse defense costs and settlement payments, raising questions about the extent to which those amounts could be covered under a public company D&O insurance program.

A pending coverage dispute arising out of Cornerstone Building Brands’ 2022 take-private transaction highlights those issues. At the center of the dispute is whether amounts a company pays to indemnify its financial adviser for defense costs and settlement payments constitute covered Loss under a public-company D&O policy.  Below is a discussion of Cornerstone’s coverage complaint, the parties’ competing summary judgment arguments, and potential D&O underwriting implications.

Continue Reading Coverage Dispute Tests Limits of Side C Coverage

In the following guest post, Javier Ybarra, Oswald Carvalho, and Sofia Garcia-Ollauri, all of Marsh Spain, consider a special feature of D&O insurance in Spain. Spain’s legal system allows civil damage claims to be pursued within criminal proceedings, which can lead courts to require directors and officers to post civil or bail bonds (“fianzas”) before liability is finally determined. As the authors discuss below, D&O insurers in Spain may be expected to provide or support these bonds, and companies with Spanish operations should ensure their D&O policies explicitly address bond coverage, reimbursement obligations, and related collateral requirements. Our thanks to the authors for allowing us to publish their article as a guest post on this site. Here is the authors’ article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Are D&O Insurers Expected to Act as a “Bondsman” in Spain?

Artificial intelligence-related securities litigation continues to accelerate, with plaintiffs increasingly targeting not only alleged misstatements about AI products and capabilities, but also companies’ disclosures regarding their investments in AI and the impact of those investments on business operations.  A couple of recently filed lawsuits challenge AI-related spending and capital allocation decisions, which may underscore whether growing investor scrutiny of whether management adequately disclosed the financial risks, costs, and tradeoffs associated with aggressive AI initiatives.

Continue Reading Another AI Spending-Related Securities Class Action

In recent years, the D&O Diary has followed the growing debate over whether companies should reincorporate outside Delaware, particularly in states such as Nevada and Texas.  We have also followed Delaware’s efforts to address the trend through measures including the enactment of SB 21 and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision upholding the statute.

And we queried whether DExit could prove to be a new source of D&O exposure. A newly amended class action complaint against Dropbox may provide yet another example of that risk, as shareholders are challenging Dropbox’s reincorporation to Nevada, alleging that the move was undertaken to protect management and the controlling stockholder from accountability for underlying business and governance decisions.

Continue Reading Dropbox Derivative Suit Over a DExit

The wave of litigation involving private credit continues to expand. FS KKR Capital Corp. (“FSK”), one of the largest publicly traded business development companies (“BDCs”), is already defending a securities class action lawsuit (KKR SCA) alleging that it overstated asset valuations and misrepresented the effectiveness of its efforts to address troubled portfolio companies. On July 15, 2026, a shareholder of FSK filed a separate derivative lawsuit against the company’s external investment adviser, FS/KKR Advisor, LLC (FS/KKR), alleging that the adviser extracted grossly excessive advisory fees in violation of its fiduciary duties under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Continue Reading Another Private Credit Excessive Fee Lawsuit

D&O Diary readers are aware of a growing trend over the past year: an increasing number of securities class actions arising from alleged market manipulation involving low-float public companies. These cases, ranging from pump-and-dump and spoofing schemes to stock promotion claims, now also include a lawsuit filed this week against Megan Holdings Limited (Megan), whose share price allegedly surged more than 400% in one month before plunging over 93% in a single trading day. The company, headquartered in Malaysia, develops, constructs, and maintains aquaculture farms and related infrastructure. 

Continue Reading Pump-and-Dump Securities Suit Adds to Growing Market Manipulation Litigation Trend

Over the past couple of years, the D&O Diary has followed how geopolitical developments, including wars, sanctions, tariffs, export controls, and trade disputes, can create public company D&O exposure. These developments can present disclosure challenges and have led to securities suits arising from export controls, tariffs, and related business impacts.

A recently filed securities class action against Photronics, Inc. (Photronics) highlights how later statements about geopolitical tensions and supply chain challenges can be woven into broader claims that a company’s earlier disclosures were misleadingly incomplete. Photronics manufactures photomasks, the highly precise templates used in the process to produce semiconductors. While the complaint primarily alleges misstatements about product demand and financial performance, it also cites disclosure failures related to the U.S.-Iran conflict and supply chain disruptions.

Continue Reading What Constitutes Geopolitical Disclosure Risk?

One of the questions that has accompanied the Securities and Exchange Commission’s changing approach to digital asset regulation is whether a decline in enforcement activity would lead to an increase private plaintiff litigation against cryptocurrency and crypto-adjacent companies.  A July 7, 2026, report by NERA Economic Consulting (NERA) suggests the answer may be more nuanced. While, according to NERA’s analysis, private securities litigation has become a larger share of crypto-related litigation, it has not fully replaced the reduction in SEC enforcement actions.  The changing nature of crypto-related claims could have a significant impact on D&O underwriters operating in the sector. The NERA report provides a useful framework for evaluating the D&O implications of these developments.

A link to the NERA report published by Simona Mola, Ph.D. can be found here.

Continue Reading Crypto D&O Risk Is Evolving

Continuation Vehicles (CVs) have grown in popularity with private equity (PE) firms as traditional exit routes, such as IPOs and strategic sales, have become unfavorable due to geopolitical turmoil, macroeconomic and AI- driven disruption.  However, the same features that make CVs attractive for PE sponsors may also create D&O and E&O exposure, as sponsors typically control key aspects of the transaction, including valuation, process design, and investor disclosures.

Continue Reading Continuation Vehicles and Private Equity Management Liability Risk

A securities class action filed against ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers on June 25, 2026, highlights what may be the next phase of AI-related securities litigation. Unlike many earlier AI-related lawsuits, which alleged that companies overstated their AI capabilities, the Zoom complaint alleges that the company accurately described its AI initiatives but failed to disclose that AI was simultaneously disrupting its legacy business model.

If this theory gains traction, it could represent another evolution in AI-related securities litigation: from alleged AI washing to alleged underdisclosure of AI-related business risks.

Continue Reading AI-Related Securities Litigation Continues to Evolve