Inadequate Consideration

Subscribe to Inadequate Consideration via RSS

On March 6, 2024, in a decision that has attracted a lot of attention in the business press, the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Virginia law, held that the bump-up exclusion in Towers Watson’s D&O insurance policy precludes coverage for the $90 million paid in settlement of claims relating to the firm’s January 2016 merger with Willis Group Holdings. As discussed below, the court’s ruling highlights recurring issues concerning the wording of the bump-up exclusion. A copy of the March 6, 2024, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Bump-Up Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Merger-Related Claims Settlement

For the second time in recent days, a court has held that a D&O insurance policy provision operates to preclude coverage for claims against an insured company and its executives that the consideration to be paid for the acquisition of the insured company is inadequate. The Seventh Circuit in a recent decision held that the “inadequate consideration” exclusion (sometimes referred to as the “bump-up” exclusion) in the applicable D&O insurance precludes coverage for a claim that disclosure in the company’s proxy statement omitted information that could have been used to negotiate a higher price. As discussed below, the policy wording at issue was relevant to the outcome. The Seventh Circuit’s January 23, 2023, opinion in the Komatsu Mining Corp. case can be found here.Continue Reading “Inadequate Consideration” Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Underpayment of Insured Company’s Acquisition

In a recent decision following a bench trial, a California state court judge held that a D&O insurance policy’s “bump up” exclusion applies to preclude coverage for the settlement of claims by shareholders of the acquired company who claimed they had received inadequate consideration for their acquired shares. The judge’s decision, which reflected her reading of the specific exclusionary language involved as well as the testimony of several witnesses about the meaning of the provision, is interesting in that the “bump up” exclusion fights usually involve claims against the acquirer for paying inadequate consideration, not claims that the acquired company’s investors received inadequate consideration.

The court’s opinion is detailed but merits a full reading. The Court’s October 1, 2020 decision can be found here. (It should be noted that, under applicable procedural rules, the court’s decision is “tentative,” meaning that the parties have 15 days in which to file objections.)
Continue Reading “Bump-Up” Exclusion Blocks Coverage for Inadequate Consideration Paid for Insured Company’s Acquisition