麻豆映画

In this issue:

• DELAWARE COURT AFFIRMS STOCK PAYMENTS AS COVERED LOSS WITH BROAD D&O POLICY INTERPRETATION
• COURT WILL NOT FORCE A NON-CONSENTING CARRIER TO ACCEPT A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT, BUT ISSUES WARNING
• D&O POLICY鈥橲 DUTY TO ADVANCE NOT LIMITED SOLELY TO WHEN CARRIER SEEKS TO VOID THE POLICY
• RUNOFF OR EXTENDED REPORTING PERIOD DOES NOT CURE THE CLAIMS MADE AND REPORTED ISSUE
• REPLACEMENT POLICY TERMINATES EXTENDED REPORTING WINDOW ON PREVIOUS POLICY

In this issue:

• AWARD UPHELD IN D&O ALLOCATION DISPUTE
• A GOOD REMINDER: A CONVICTION IS NOT A FINAL NON-APPEALABLE JUDGMENT
• TRADE SECRET CLAIM MEETS DEFINITION OF A 鈥淧RIVACY EVENT鈥� UNDER A PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY
• D&O INSURANCE PROCEEDS AVAILABLE TO OFFICERS IN CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY WHEN ESTATE LACKS INTEREST IN PROCEEDS
• BIOPHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY REACHES MASSIVE SETTLEMENT AFTER FAILING TO DISCLOSE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS RELATED TO MEDICATIONS
• ERISA WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY EXTENDS TO THOSE IN THE SAME "CONTROL GROUP"
• CLAIMS-MADE POLICY鈥橲 RETROACTIVE DATE PROVISION BARS COVERAGE FOR PRE-POLICY BIPA CLAIM
• WHY DUTY TO DEFEND IS A GREAT TOOL FOR COVERAGE ADVOCACY

In this issue:

• POLICY LANGUAGE LEADS TO BAD OUTCOMES
• A CALIFORNIA COURT RATIFIED A DENIAL OF INDEMNITY COVERAGE FOR A RETALIATION CLAIM UNDER SECTION 533
• SECURITIES CLASS ACTION AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS RELATE TO PRIOR NOTICE OF CIRCUMSTANCE
• EXCESS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIABILITY CARRIER MUST PAY REMAINING DEFENSE COSTS AND SETTLEMENT AMOUNT FOLLOWING EXHAUSTION
• PROFESSIONALS ARE HELD TO AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AND ARE MEASURED BY A REASONABLE MEMBER OF THE SAME DISCIPLINE
• CALIFORNIA COURT CLARIFIED THAT BRANDT FEES DO NOT INCLUDE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF POLICY LIMITS
• MISREPRESENTATION IN RENEWAL APPLICATION LEADS TO RESCISSION

In this issue:

• SECOND CIRCUIT UPHOLDS DISMISSAL OF SHORT-SWING CLAIM AGAINST INVESTMENT FUND
• COURT AFFIRMS CARRIER鈥橲 SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION OVER AN INSURED鈥橲 OBJECTION
• CAN PRIVATE PARTIES SUE UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OR IS THE SEC ONLY AUTHORIZED TO ENFORCE IT? THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD CLARIFY
• PRIOR NOTICE EXCLUSION CANNOT BAR COVERAGE FOR UNRELATED PRIOR WRONGFUL ACTS

In this issue:

• FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CLAIMS-MADE POLICY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BARS COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES DESPITE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
• STATES SEEK TO LIMIT CORPORATE AND PRIVATE EQUITY INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTHCARE
• CYBER SECURITY FIRM SUED FOR HANDING OVER PASSWORDS TO HACKERS AND FAILING TO FOLLOW SECURITY PROTOCOLS
• A MIXED OUTCOME: FEDERAL JUDGE NARROWS THE SCOPE OF DATA BREACH LITIGATION
• THE PRESENCE OF A CONTRACT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CARRIER OF THEIR INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS

In this issue:

• GRAMMAR MATTERS: SERIES-QUALIFIER INTERPRETIVE CANON ANALYSIS RESTORES THE DUTY TO DEFEND
• PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY RESCINDED DUE TO ATTORNEY鈥橲 CONCEALED DISCIPLINARY HISTORY IN APPLICATION
• DELAWARE COURT FINDS THAT A TOLLING AGREEMENT FROM THE SEC IS A CLAIM; BUT DOES NOT
• TRIGGER ENTITY COVERAGE FOR A SECURITIES CLAIM
  DILUTION CLAIM CARVE-BACK TO INSURED V. INSURED EXCLUSION SAVES COVERAGE

In this issue:

• FOURTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT BUMP-UP EXCLUSION PRECLUDES COVERAGE FOR SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING THE PORTION THAT ULTIMATELY WENT TOWARD ATTORNEYS' FEES
• SENATE BILL 29 MAKES TEXAS A PREFERRED STATE FOR INCORPORATION
• A BUSINESS鈥� PLACE OF INCORPORATION GUIDES RULES FOR FILING DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS IN NEW YORK
• OREGON CRACKDOWNS ON CORPORATE OWNERSHIP IN THE HEALTHCARE SPACE WITH SENATE BILL 951

In this issue:

• THE SUPREME COURT EXPANDS RICO TO REDRESS BUSINESS LOSSES THAT STEMS FROM PERSONAL INJURIES
• INSURER IS NOT LIABLE FOR SETTLEMENT IT DID NOT CONSENT TO, EVEN IF IT MAINTAINED A DENIAL AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT
• COURT OF APPEALS RULING BASED UPON 搂 533 鈥� HOLDING INSURER IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ADVANCE DEFENSE COSTS FOR WILLFUL ACTS
• NO COVERAGE FOR WRONGFUL ACTS ALLEGED PRIOR TO TRANSACTION AS WELL AS CAPACITY ISSUES
• D&O POLICY鈥橲 REGULATORY CLAIMS ENDORSEMENT COVERAGE IS SUBJECT TO A RETENTION
• NEVADA鈥橲 PLEADING STANDARDS FOR CONFLICTED TRANSACTIONS STRICTER THAN DELAWARE
• LLC AGREEMENTS ARE CONTROLLED BY THEIR TERMS AND NOT IMPLIED DUTIES

In this issue:

• INSURERS AVOID COVERAGE BASED ON CHANGES IN EXPOSURE PROVISION
• INSURERS NOT OBLIGATED TO COVER BIPA CLAIMS UNDER BROAD RECORDING-AND-DISTRIBUTION EXCLUSION
• AUTOMAKER SETTLES FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT
• TWO CASES FILED 18 YEARS APART ARE DEEMED UNRELATED IN A FACT INTENSIVE ANALYSIS
• COURT RULES THAT UNREAD E-MAILS TRIGGER CLAIMS-MADE POLICY UPON RECEIPT

In this issue:

• COURT BROADLY APPLIES 鈥淢EANINGFUL LINKAGE鈥� STANDARD IN INTERRELATED WRONGFUL ACTS ANALYSIS
• NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT SHAREHOLDER CLAIMS MUST BE TRACEABLE UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12(a)(2)
• TRUSTEES HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE D&O INSURERS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
• COURT REJECTS INSURER鈥橲 BROAD APPLICATION OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCLUSION IN QUI TAM ACTION
• DELAWARE鈥橲 CONTROVERSIAL AMENDMENTS TO ITS CORPORATE LAW PASSED BY STATE SENATE IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS OVER 鈥淒EXIT鈥�
• INSURERS AVOID COVERAGE BASED ON 鈥淐HANGES IN EXPOSURE鈥� PROVISION
• DELWARE COURT FAVORS BROAD COVERAGE AND HOLDS STOCK PAYMENT CONSTITUTES COVERED LOSS
• FCC TO MOVE AWAY FROM SECTION 230 PROTECTION FOR ONLINE PLATFORMS?

• AS THE US REDUCES REGULATION ON FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES, THE UK IS INCREASING SUCH REGULATION
• COURT APPLIES BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE TO REINCORPORATION ABSENT PENDING LIGATION
• INSURER ABSOLVED FROM DEFENDING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ALLEGATIONS BASED ON PRIOR NOTICE EXCLUSION
• SUBLIMIT ACTS AS AN EXCLUSION TO COVERAGE
• THE FTC AND CONSUMERS DECLARE WAR ON DATA COLLECTORS: INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS ARE LIKELY TO FOLLOW

• D&O POLICY鈥橲 RELATED WRONGFUL ACTS EXCLUSION BARS COVERAGE
• FIFTH CIRCUIT鈥橲 DECISIONS MAY FURTHER DERAIL ESG INVESTING EFFORTS
• DELAWARE COURT APPLIES NEW YORK LAW TO A COVERAGE DISPUTE ABOUT RELATEDNESS
• NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT FINDS PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY COVERS LOSS OF PROPERTY USE DUE TO COVID RESTRICTIONS
• NARROW INTERPRETATION OF WRONGFUL ACT DEFINITION IN PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY PRECLUDES COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FIRM
• DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT RULES 鈥淏UMP-UP PROVISION鈥� DOES NOT APPLY TO BAR COVERAGE FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION