Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In recent years, newspaper headlines have focused on a variety of financial scandals that have unfolded over long periods of time. The largest Ponzi scheme in history, arising from the activities of former NASDAQ chairman Bernard Madoff, resulted in $50 billion of investor losses over 15 years. Attorney Mark Dreier sold $100 million of false promissory notes to third parties over a four-year period, while Florida attorney Scott Rothstein is alleged to have operated a five-year, $1 billion Ponzi scheme. Some commentators posit that commercial crime insurance may provide coverage for such losses. That proposition is highly debatable, and, even if such coverage is available, it is unlikely to provide significant protection, given recent precedents construing how claims arising from long-ensuing criminal activities should be allocated between and among successively issued policies.
By way of background, commercial crime insurance (also known as “fidelity bonds,” “fidelity insurance,” and “employee dishonesty insurance”) generally provides coverage to employers for losses related to an employee's fraudulent conduct. Policies typically contain limits of coverage that apply on an “occurrence” basis, often defined as “an act or series of acts” by an employee. In insurance law generally, the majority of courts define an occurrence in terms of its cause. Barry R. Ostrager & Thomas R. Newman, 1 Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes ' 9.02 (15th ed. 2009). In the crime policy context, however, courts are split as to whether a crime committed by an employee over a multi-year period constitutes one occurrence or multiple occurrences or can trigger more than one policy.
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.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?