settlement

Subscribe to settlement

The typical D&O insurance policy provides coverage, subject to all of its terms and conditions, for an insured’s payment of “Loss.” The policy typically provides that “Loss” includes settlements. But what happens if in settling a lawsuit a policyholder issues stock rather than paying cash? Does the stock issuance represent “Loss” within the meaning of the policy? In an interesting recent opinion, the Delaware Superior Court held that AMC Entertainment Holding’s issuance of stock in connection with the settlement of a stockholders’ claim did represent “Loss” within the meaning of the applicable policy. As discussed below, the court’s opinion raises some interesting questions. The Delaware court’s February 28, 2025, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Is Stock Issuance in Connection with a Settlement “Loss”?

Just weeks before trial in the case was scheduled to being, the parties to the Under Armor securities class action lawsuit have agreed to settle the case for $434 million, according a company SEC filing. The case had recently survived the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. According to the lead plaintiffs’ counsel, the settlement represents the second-largest securities suit settlement in the Fourth Circuit. The settlement is subject to court approval. A copy of the company’s June 21, 2023, filing on Form 8-K can be found here. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s June 21, 2024, press release about the settlement can be found here.Continue Reading Under Armour Securities Suit Settles for $434 Million

As I have previously noted (here), even though the parties to the consolidated First Energy derivative litigation pending in the Southern District of Ohio reached an agreement to settle the case for a payment of $180 million and the company’s agreement to adopt governance reforms, Northern District of Ohio Judge John Adams has tried to force the plaintiffs’ lawyers to continue to pursue the separate case pending in his court, notwithstanding the settlement. Now, as Alison Frankel reported in a July 15, 2022 post in her On the Case blog (here), Judge Adams has followed through on his threat to boot the plaintiffs’ lawyers and replace them with lawyers that will pursue the case in his court. At first no prospective replacement lawyers appeared. But now, of all things, the famed litigator David Boies has stepped forward to propose his firm as counsel to take over the case in the Northern District of Ohio. All of this comes just as the settlement proceedings in the Southern District of Ohio are about to come to a head.
Continue Reading FirstEnergy Derivative Suit: Cycle of Post-Settlement Weirdness Continues to Unspool

Last month, when I noted in a post that the parties to the FirstEnergy bribery-related derivative litigation had agreed to settle the suits for a payment of $180 million and the company’s agreement to adopt certain governance reforms, I added what I thought at the time was the pro forma observation that the settlement was subject to court approval. The court processes that have followed have been anything but pro forma. As it has turned out, Northern District of Ohio Judge John R. Adams has thrown a huge money-wrench into the works, refusing even to stay the case pending in his court, demanding that plaintiffs’ counsel reveal the names of the individuals that actually paid the supposed bribes, and directing the parties to conduct depositions in the case – a case that the parties have already agreed to settle. The story of the unfolding of these events is well told in two recent posts on Alison Frankel’s On the Case blog, here and here.
Continue Reading The Parties Agreed to a Settlement. Then Things Got Weird.

In a June 17, 2009 opinion (here), the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s entry, in connection with the $445 million partial settlement of the HealthSouth securities action, of a bar order that extinguished Richard Scrushy’s contractual claims both for indemnification of any settlement he may enter in the case as well as…