As readers know, one aspect of President Trump’s exercise of his presidential powers has been his willingness to grant pardons to certain persons, including even, as it has turned out, corporations. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the possible D&O insurance implications for a policyholder that has been convicted of a crime but granted a pardon. I would like to thank Sarah for her willingness to allow me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. 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 Sarah’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Pardon Me
On October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirement for issuers to recover from current and former executives compensation that was erroneously paid due to an accounting restatement. The final rules require securities exchanges to adopt listing standards that will require listed companies to implement and disclose policies requiring the erroneously paid compensation to be recovered, on a “no fault” basis – that is, without regard to whether any misconduct occurred or whether an executive bears responsibility. The SEC’s Release covers a broad range of topics, including — importantly for readers of this blog — considerations relating to indemnification or insurance for the clawed-back compensation. The SEC’s October 26, 2022 press release about the new rules can be found 
A perception has emerged in certain circles that Delaware Superior Court is a favorable forum for D&O insurance policyholder and unfavorable for D&O insurers. However, in a recent decision in a D&O insurance coverage dispute by the federal court in Delaware (as opposed to the state court in Delaware) not only determined that Delaware law applied but also determined that there was no coverage under the applicable policy for the underlying claim. As discussed below, the court’s ruling in the case may suggest that Delaware’s federal court may represent an alternative to Delaware’s state courts for D&O insurers. A copy of the District of Delaware’s May 23, 2022 decision in the Cocrystal case can be found 
Wells Fargo’s bogus customer account scandal is back in the news again, most recently because of the bank’s release on Monday of the report of its independent directors’ investigation of the bank’s improper sales practices. The April 10, 2017 report, which the bank 
On August 10, 2015, in an opinion that has already garnered a great deal of attention and commentary, the California Supreme Court ruled that an insurer that funded the payment for its insured of independent counsel (or “Cumis” counsel as independent counsel are known in California) in defense of a claim may seek to recover directly from the independent counsel law firm amounts the insurer paid that the insurer contends were excessive or unreasonable. Though the ruling represents a landmark of sorts, the California Supreme Court’s opinion is much narrower than many commentators have acknowledged, which will limit its applicability in other cases. A copy of the California Supreme Court’s opinion can be found 
Numerous questions surround the SEC’s new policy requiring enforcement action defendants in “egregious” cases to admit to wrongdoing in order to settle with the agency, rather than simply agreeing to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations. As I discussed in a prior post (
Lee Farkas, the criminally convicted former Chairman and majority shareholder of the defunct