Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis and D&O Insurance: A New Frontier of Litigation
The fallout from the virtual collapse of the subprime mortgage lending industry has just begun. Early estimates of subprime losses start at $100 billion and may rise to several times that amount. (Fin. Times, Nov. 6, 2007, at p. 18). As the various participants in the subprime market ' borrowers, originators, institutional investors, financial institutions, hedge funds, underwriters, warehouse lenders, insurers, corporate investors, and the list goes on and on ' continue to uncover the extent of their losses, the blame game among these participants is likely to be played out in courts across the country.
The targets of this litigation ' directors, officers, and the corporation itself ' will, more likely than not, have directors and officers' liability insurance. Whether a D&O policy will afford coverage for the litigation resulting from the collapse of the subprime mortgage lending industry is yet to be seen. As discussed below, there are several policy provisions that are likely to be relevant in the subprime context. Because coverage follows liability, an understanding of the potential coverage issues first requires an understanding of the claims themselves.
To date, numerous lawsuits have been filed against a variety of participants in the subprime market. By way of example, in late October 2007, two lawsuits were filed against Merrill Lynch & Co. and its directors and officers. The claims arose out of Merrill Lynch's involvement in the securitization of subprime (as well as other residential and nonresidential) loans, which were bundled together and resold to investors in the secondary market through various financing vehicles, and the subsequent investment in those securities. The first lawsuit is a class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws (Life Enrichment Foundation v. Merrill Lynch & Co., No. 07 CIV 9633 (S.D.N.Y.)), while the second lawsuit is a shareholder's derivative action alleging breaches of fiduciary duties (Patricia Arthur, Derivatively on Behalf of Merrill Lynch & Co., v. E. Stanley O'Neal, et al., No. 07 CIV 9696 (S.D.N.Y.)). The factual allegations giving rise to both lawsuits are virtually identical.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.