Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
The media is rife with references to high-profile corporate scandals. Although the fate of those responsible for corporate misconduct is well publicized, the innocent corporate officials impacted by such scandals are rarely mentioned. In an effort to protect directors and officers, corporations allocate significant capital to buying directors' and officers' ("D&O") liability insurance. However, in today's environment of increasing numbers of corporate scandals, even innocent directors and officers sometimes find themselves stripped of the very protection such policies are meant to afford by insurance companies seeking to avoid large exposures. Allegations of corporate fraud have lead insurance companies to invoke exclusionary provisions and increasingly to seek the remedy of rescission. Although procuring D&O insurance coverage reflects a corporation's realization of and appreciation for the risk faced by directors and officers, corporations must ensure that the policies they purchase actually provide the protection sought. This article examines recent trends in court decisions regarding D&O insurance in cases of corporate fraud and suggests methods by which corporations can attempt to maximize the protection provided by their D&O policies, particularly for innocent corporate officials.
By virtually any measure, Hurricane Katrina ranks as one of the worst natural disasters in American history. It will surely be months if not years before the full toll of the storm and its aftermath, including long-term effects on the Gulf Coast, are known. It is equally sure that Hurricane Katrina will spawn an array of disputes concerning insurance coverage for losses or damage caused by the storm. Indeed, barely 2 weeks after the hurricane hit land, at least two major insurance coverage lawsuits, one in Mississippi and one in Louisiana, had already been filed.
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Landlords frequently run into unexpected problems — which I call "icebergs" — with their tenants, some of which were discussed in last month's Spotlight, <i>ie</i>, hazmat remediation. Here are a few more icebergs to watch out for.
Features
Landlords and tenants occasionally ask whether they should bother to negotiate and execute a letter of intent to lease. Many wonder whether it might be more efficient to launch right into negotiating the lease itself. The investment in negotiating a letter of intent to lease will almost always pay quick dividends for landlords and tenants. The dividends may be in the form of an early discovery of a lack of agreement on an important issue that will allow the parties either to resolve it quickly or decide to terminate further negotiations and part ways. The more details sorted out during the letter of intent phase, the greater the likelihood of a smoother and successful consummation of the lease. Finding the proper balance of detail to include at the letter of intent phase is often a function of the nature and size of the transaction and the sophistication and leverage of the parties involved. This article is intended to help landlords and tenants consider what they may want to include in their letters of intent to lease.
Features
Part One of this article discussed the <i>Penn Central</i> multifactor takings test. The conclusion addresses the "whole parcel" rule announced in <i>Penn Central</i> as well as the two-part takings test established by <i>Agins v. City of Tiburon</i>, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) and suggests strategies to redress loss of property values due to regulations.
Features
Everything in this issue, in an easy-to-follow format.
In-depth analysis of a recent key case.