I am evangelical about the importance of defense counsel working collegially with D&O insurers and brokers – the repeat players in securities and governance litigation – in the defense of litigation against our common clients. In the big picture, this type of collegiality is the key to putting “litigation” back in “securities litigation” and to
D&O Insurance Brokers
The State of Securities Litigation
In 2012, I started the D&O Discourse blog to have a discussion among the repeat players in securities and corporate governance litigation: insurers, brokers, mediators, economists, plaintiffs’ counsel, and defense counsel. I share opinions from the defense-counsel perspective, but I call it like I see it. For example, in a post in anticipation of the…
PLUS D&O Symposium: Contingent Liability Insurance for Securities Class Action Trials
It was a great honor to moderate a Professional Liability Underwriting Society D&O Symposium panel on the ability of Contingent Liability (CL) insurance to improve outcomes in securities class actions (SCA).
Randy Hein, President of Berkley Transactional (Berkley Professional Liability), pioneer of CL for SCAs; Kara Altenbaumer-Price, executive risk broker at…
Is Blue Apron a Silver Bullet?
In Salzberg, et al. v. Sciabacucchi, No. 346, 2019 (Del. Mar. 18, 2020) (“Blue Apron”), the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the facial validity of federal-forum provisions (FFPs) in a Delaware corporation’s certificate of incorporation requiring actions arising under the Securities Act of 1933 to be filed exclusively in federal court. Here is Kevin LaCroix’s…
Can We Talk?
Last month, D&O insurance lawyer John McCarrick and D&O insurance executive Paul Schiavone published a guest post on Kevin LaCroix’s blog, The D&O Diary, titled “Is it Time to Revisit the Scope of D&O Coverage?” John and Kevin’s post has triggered response posts from four policyholder advocates: Kevin of RT ProExec (response…
Wrap-up: “Who is Winning the Securities Class Action War—Plaintiffs or Defendants?”
I am grateful for the enthusiastic feedback I’ve received on my three-part blog post “Who is Winning the Securities Class Action War—Plaintiffs or Defendants?” I especially appreciate the time Kevin LaCroix took to write a post addressing my post in his leading blog, The D&O Diary.
With the benefit of 25 years’ experience…
Who Is Winning the Securities Class Action War—Plaintiffs or Defendants? (Part III)
This is the third of a three-part post that analyzes why plaintiffs are winning the securities class action war and what defendants can do about it.
At stake is a system of securities litigation that sets up one side or the other to win more cases in the long term. It has real-world consequences for…
Be Careful What You Wish For, Part II: Would Companies Be Better Off Without the Fraud-on-the-Market Doctrine?
The villain in the fight against securities class actions is the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). Without Basic, the thinking goes, a plaintiff could not maintain a securities class action, and without securities class actions, executives could…
Lessons Learned in London
Earlier this month, I spent a week in the birthplace of D&O insurance, London. In addition to moderating a panel at Advisen’s European Executive Risks Insights Conference, I met with many energetic and talented D&O insurance professionals, both veterans and rising stars, to discuss U.S. securities litigation and regulatory risks. Themes emerged on some key…
5 Wishes for Securities Litigation Defense: Greater Director Involvement in Securities Litigation Defense and D&O Insurance
One of my “5 Wishes for Securities Litigation Defense” (April 30, 2016 post) is greater involvement by boards of directors in decisions concerning D&O insurance and the defense of securities litigation, including defense-counsel selection. Far too often, directors cede these critical strategic decisions to management.
For most directors, securities litigation is a mysterious…