The D&O Diary has chronicled mounting stress in the private credit market, underscored by the high-profile collapses of borrowers such as Tricolor and First Brands, and the resulting migration from borrower insolvency into securities litigation against private credit lenders themselves. This escalation highlights sharpening scrutiny from private credit fund investors and public shareholders alike. Exemplifying this trend, Blue Owl Capital Corporation (“Blue Owl”) recently moved to limit redemptions following a historic surge in withdrawal requests. This liquidity strain coincides with putative class actions filed in December 2025 and January 2026 (Blue Owl SCAs) as well as a derivative suit filed on April 27, 2026 (Blue Owl Suit).  

While the Blue Owl SCA alleges that Blue Owl’s leadership concealed pressures on the firm’s direct lending vehicles, the Blue Owl Suit additionally alleges that Blue Owl was acting in a dual capacity when determining illiquid private credit fund valuations.  Below, we discuss the allegations against Blue Owl and the developing D&O and E&O risks for private credit funds.

Continue Reading Blue Owl and the Growing D&O and E&O Risks in Private Credit

In an insurance coverage dispute arising out of an unusual underlying criminal proceeding, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Maryland law, has held that a Maryland attorney indicted for his alleged actions on behalf of certain Somalian entities is not entitled to insurance for his fees incurred in defending against the indictment. The Court’s decision raises interesting issues about the applicable professional liability insurance policy’s definition of Claim and the definition’s application in the context of the attorney’s criminal proceedings. A copy of the Fourth Circuit’s January 4, 2024 opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading Attorney’s Post-Indictment Defense Fees Not Covered Under Professional Liability Policy

indianaOn April 22, 2015, in a sweeping win for health insurer Anthem Inc., the Indiana Supreme Court held that excess reinsurers on the company’s self-insured E&O insurance program must pay the company’s costs of defending and settling allegations that it had improperly failed to pay, underpaid, or delayed paying medical reimbursement claims. The Court rejected