Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Today's headlines are filled with stories about corporate scandals and trials of corporate executives accused of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence. The natural fallout has been SEC investigations, hundreds of civil lawsuits, and criminal prosecutions. Directors' and officers' insurers (“D&O insurers”) have seen a dramatic increase in claims as a result of these events. The initial battleground relating to the corporate scandal claims is whether there is a duty to defend or pay defense costs. The D&O insurers have asserted numerous defenses to providing a defense or paying defense costs. One defense that is being asserted frequently is rescission or “unilateral” rescission (collectively “rescission”). The rescission defense attempts to extinguish the policy by declaring it void ab initio. Recently, the majority of courts that have considered rescission have rejected it or deferred consideration of it, while ordering the D&O insurer to pay for, or provide the policyholder with, a defense. This article discusses recent cases that have addressed insurers' rescission arguments and explores the arguments that rebut the rescission defense.
The Duty to Defend or Pay Defense Costs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.