ill-gotten gains

Subscribe to ill-gotten gains via RSS

Over the last several years, the United States Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions addressing the SEC’s powers to seek disgorgement against alleged securities law violators. Last Thursday, in the latest decision in the recent series, the Court issued a unanimous decision holding in Sripetch v. SEC that the SEC can seek disgorgement as a remedy even if the agency cannot prove that investors suffered a financial loss. The decision, which resolves a split between the federal judicial circuits on the issue, represents an affirmation of the SEC’s disgorgement authority. The Supreme Court’s June 4, 2026, ruling can be found here.

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court: Financial Loss Not a Precondition for SEC Disgorgement Authority

A frequently recurring D&O insurance coverage question is whether the insurance policy provides insurance against claimed damages that are restitutionary in nature. The argument against coverage is under a public policy principle that the insured persons should not be able to obtain insurance protection against the return of so-called ill-gotten gains. This question was considered again in a recent insurance coverage decision out of a Connecticut trial court. In a decision that apparently is one of first impression in Connecticut, the court held both that the policy’s uninsurability clause and the policy’s personal benefit exclusion precluded coverage for the amount of a stipulated judgment in the underlying action. A copy of the Connecticut court’s August 23, 2024, opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading Ct. Court Holds Restitutionary Damages Uninsurable

D&O insurance typically defines the term “Claim” to include criminal charges after indictment. However, the coverage available under the policy for criminal proceedings is excluded in the event of a final adjudication determining that precluded misconduct actually took place. But what happens to the coverage if there is no final adjudication but rather the criminal charges are resolved through a negotiation that results in a monetary payment by the criminal defendants? In a recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the applicable D&O insurance policy’s coverage did not extend to amounts paid in negotiated resolution of criminal charges, despite the absence of a final adjudication – not by operation of the exclusion, but because of the nature of the payments. 
Continue Reading 11th Circ.: Florida Public Policy Precludes Coverage for Voluntary Settlement of Criminal Charges

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

new yorkIn 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

minnOn December 16, 2014, in an interesting ruling that undoubtedly will stir up a great deal of debate, District of Minnesota Judge Paul Magnuson, applying Delaware law, granted U.S. Bancorp’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the bank’s professional liability insurers must pay $30 million of the $55 million the bank agreed to pay …

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…