Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How Preclusion of an FDIC Action Under the Insured v. Insured Exclusion Could Change D&O Coverage
The 2008 financial crisis might be behind us, but coverage disputes stemming from the flood of lawsuits brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) against directors and officers of failed banks are far from over. With the FDIC filing lawsuits against more than 1,200 individuals for directors and officers liability between January 2009 and August 2015, coverage continues to be hotly contested across the country, with the most heavily litigated issue being whether a lawsuit commenced by the FDIC as a receiver of a failed bank is precluded by the “insured v. insured” exclusion commonly contained in Directors and Officers liability (“D&O”) policies. See FDIC, http://1.usa.gov/1NdXuA1.
The application of this exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims based on suits brought by one insured against another, has yielded mixed results. Although some courts have held that insured v. insured exclusions preclude coverage because the FDIC “steps into the shoes” of the company when it brings lawsuits against directors and officers in its capacity as a receiver; other courts, representing a growing consensus favoring coverage, have held that the application of the exclusion in the FDIC context is ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer. However, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit departs from the coverage trend and raises issues that are likely to change the D&O landscape going forward.
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
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.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.