United States: United States FI And D&O developments: A Snapshot

Last Updated: June 17 2016
Article by Ned J. Kirk

The liability and regulatory landscape in the U.S. continues to evolve and remains one of the highest risk areas for FI/D&O insurers worldwide. As in past years, 2015 had a mix of both positive and negative developments from the standpoint of FI/D&O exposures.

We provide below an overview of developments relevant for FI/D&O insurers with U.S. exposures, including a review of the current litigation landscape, regulatory investigations and actions, current and potential trends to watch and recent coverage decisions.

Current Litigation Landscape

Securities Class Actions

Securities class actions continued to be the most dangerous types of lawsuits for public companies and their D&Os. The 189 new filings in 2015 was an increase of 11% from 2014 and above the average annual number of filings (188) for the first time since 2008. Despite the elevated numbers, there were no new major filing trends in 2015 and most of those cases were so-called "traditional filings" alleging Rule 10b-5 and/or Sections 11 and 12 violations.

The likelihood that a public company in the U.S. will be named in a securities class action continues to increase as the number of publicly listed companies decreases. In 2015, 4% of U.S. listed companies were sued, compared to an average of 2.9% from 1997-2014. The most targeted industries were biotech, healthcare and pharmaceutical. Interestingly, filings against financial institutions dropped by 35% in 2015, and no banks were named in a securities class action for the first time since 2006.

Securities class actions are being filed faster (with a median of 10 days from the end of the class period to filing), but dismissed or settled more slowly. This will likely lengthen the litigation and increase defence costs as well as plaintiffs' settlement expectations as they invest more time and money in their cases.

The average securities class action settlement was up 46% in 2015 to $52 million, although a few large settlements drove this number up. Most cases were not much more expensive to settle in 2015 than in 2014.

Market capitalisation losses and potential damages were also up in 2015, but they were still not as high as in previous years.

Merger Objection Lawsuits

In the past few years, plaintiffs filed significant numbers of lawsuits following the announcement of a merger or acquisition. In 2014, almost every M&A transaction was accompanied by litigation (95%), often multiple lawsuits. These merger objection lawsuits are often filed in the form of shareholder derivative lawsuits against the companies and their D&Os. The litigation is often resolved through so-called disclosure only settlements in which the defendants agree to additional disclosures about the transaction, plus a payment for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

In the second half of 2015, there was a sharp drop in the number of new M&A lawsuits as a result of some favourable developments in the Delaware Chancery Court, where many of these cases are filed. In a number of decisions, the court was highly critical of merger objection lawsuits and/or rejected disclosure only settlements. The judges found that the value provided to shareholders by such settlements was

Merger Objection Lawsuits

  • May 2015, Vice Chancellor Laster refused to approve the disclosure only settlement of Cobham's acquisition of Aeroflex
  • September 2015, Vice Chancellor Glasscock III granted approval of a settlement in the Riverbed case, but indicated reluctance to approve disclosure only settlements and attorney fees awards
  • October 2015, Vice Chancellor Laster rejected disclosure only settlement re Hewlett-Packard's acquisition of Aruba Networks

January 2016, Chancellor Bouchard rejected disclosure settlement arising out of Zillow's acquisition of Trulia insufficient consideration for the broad releases granted to the defendants. 1

As a result, it appears that we will see a sharp drop in merger objection lawsuits in 2016. This is good news for D&O insurers who may be asked to foot the bill for defence costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees paid in such settlements.

Regulatory Investigations and Actions

In 2015, U.S. regulators continued to aggressively pursue companies and their D&Os on a number of fronts.

SEC enforcement actions increased by 7% to 807 in 2015, with 85% of SEC actions alleging violations of reporting and disclosure provisions of federal securities laws or FCPA. These cases are often pursued in the SEC administrative court, making it easier for the SEC to prosecute, although there has been push back regarding the constitutionality of such actions.

In addition, SEC investigations have increased in length to an average of 21 months, which will increase the cost to respond to such matters.

But there is some good news - the total value of SEC settlements in 2015 (USD 547m) was less than half of what was recovered in 2014 (USD 1.254bn) and below the 2010-2015 average (USD 620m).

A number of factors contributed to the increase in regulatory actions in 2015, including the SEC's use of administrative proceedings, initiatives to detect fraudulent financial reporting, such as the Robocop program, and the SEC Whistleblower program, which continues to gain in popularity around the world due to the sizeable bounties being paid out. In 2015, there were 3923 reports made under the SEC Whistleblower program, an increase of 8.3% from 2014. These reports involved a wide range of activity, including corporate disclosures and reporting, offering fraud, manipulation, insider trading and FCPA violations. To date, USD 55m has been paid out to 22 individuals, USD 37m of which was in 2015, and approximately USD 400m is in the  Investor Protection Fund for further bounty payments.

New DOJ Directive Against Individuals

In September 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new directive to target and hold accountable corporate executives. Pursuant to the so-called Yates Memo, to earn cooperation credit, companies must turn over evidence of wrongdoing by individuals at the company. According to the DOJ, "it's all or nothing." Going forward, the DOJ reportedly will not agree to corporate resolutions that include dismissal of charges against or immunity for individuals and it intends to file actions regardless of the ability to collect fines from individuals. This will likely result in broader and more costly actions against individuals, who will increasingly rely on D&O insurance to defend themselves.

Trends to Watch

Foreign Companies Increasingly Targeted

One of the current trends to watch is the rising number of securities class actions filed against foreign companies in the U.S. Although the Morrison v National Australia Bank decision in 2010 limited actions by investors in foreign securities, plaintiffs have increasingly focused on foreign companies trading on U.S. exchanges. In 2015, 35 cases were filed against foreign issuers, which is well above the 1997-2014 average of 22 per year.

In particular, plaintiffs' firms have shown a renewed interest in Chinese companies trading on U.S. exchanges. In 2015, 15 securities class actions were filed against Chinese companies and their D&Os. A number of factors have contributed to this trend, including the downturn in the Chinese economy, inconsistencies in reporting, weak corporate governance and questionable accounting practices by some companies.

Cyber Related D&O Actions?

Cyber risks continue to be a major cause for concern in the U.S., although the anticipated lawsuits and regulatory actions against D&Os relating to cyber have not yet materialized.

It is inevitable, however, that companies will incur a data breach or cyber attack at some point, and the potential for significant harm is well-known, particularly in light of headline attacks during 2014, including those on Target, Sony, Home Depot and several U.S. banks. There is an ever expanding and complex web of regulations that companies must comply with regarding cyber security and, in 2015, regulators were quite active in examining companies' cyber securities and compliance.

Cyber risks are increasingly recognised as a top corporate risk, and could surpass financial reporting as the number one concern for corporate boards. Boards will be expected to address cyber risks in a number of ways and may be sued if they fail to do so.

During 2015, two regulatory actions may foreshadow the types of actions that may be filed against companies and their D&Os when they do not properly address and disclose cyber risks. In RT Jones Capital, the SEC found that by failing to establish cyber policies to safeguard customer information a company wilfully violated Rule 30(a) of Regulation S-P. In FTC v Wyndham Worldwide Corp, the FTC determined that a company's failure to employ reasonable cyber security measures constituted an unfair business practice under the FTC Act. These cases also demonstrate that a number of regulators can bring actions for cyber breaches under different regulations.

IPO Litigation

Although the number of IPOs was down by 43% in 2015 compared to 2014, the large number of IPOs in 2013-2014 may produce a large number of IPO securities class actions in view of the three year statute of limitations. Such cases, brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act, are easier to bring than Section 10(b) cases under the Exchange Act as plaintiffs are not required to plead reliance, scienter or causation, and may be costlier to defend and settle.

U.S. Supreme Court

During 2015 and into 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court continued to show an interest in business litigation issues, particularly class actions.

In its March 2015 Omnicare decision, the court set a higher standard for liability for opinions under Section 11 of the Securities Act, requiring actual knowledge of falsity, or that the speaker omitted a material fact needed to make the opinion not misleading

In January 2016, the Court held in Campbell Ewald that plaintiffs cannot remove a lead plaintiff and defeat a class by merely offering to pay the lead plaintiff's damages (i.e., the so called "pick off" defence), therefore removing standing for the class representative.

Looking down the road, the Court will address, in a case called Spokeo, whether a plaintiff who alleges his/her statutory rights were violated but can show no concrete harm has standing to bring a claim, which could impact liability for cyber and data braches where damages are often not determined until some later date.

With the recent death of Justice Scalia, who drafted numerous significant business decisions, including Morrison and Tellabs, we may not see as much activity by the Court this year as the battle rages over his replacement.

Environmental and Climate Change Disclosures

There has also been renewed interest by both regulators and plaintiffs' counsel regarding disclosure of climate change and other environmental risks. In 2015, the SEC reviewed what companies should disclose with respect to climate change, and it is possible that we will see new rules in that regard during 2016.

The energy sector is already being targeted. In November 2015, the New York Attorney General (NYAG) subpoenaed Exxon Mobil regarding the sufficiency of its disclosures on the impact of climate change on their business.

Also in November 2015, NYAG reached a settlement with Peabody Energy in which it agreed to disclose more about climate change risks.

These types of actions could spill over into other industries, including insurance

Recent Coverage Decisions

In view of the increasingly aggressive regulators and their push to hold individuals accountable, we could see higher defence costs claims and more guilty pleas or adjudications of guilt by insured D&Os and companies. As a result, there may be more disputes between insurers and their insureds regarding whether dishonest acts exclusions or other provisions triggered by judgments or adjudications apply. If such exclusions are triggered after the insurer has advanced defence costs, we might see more efforts by insurers to recoup or obtain repayment of defence costs advanced under a reservation or rights.

During 2015, two appellate courts grappled with these issues. In Protection Strategies, the 4th Circuit found that guilty pleas by the insured D&Os triggered dishonesty and personal profit exclusions, which entitled the insurer to recoup defence costs advanced prior to the plea agreements. In that case, the policy specified that the insurer could obtain repayment of costs if there was a finding that the insureds were not entitled to coverage.

In GDC Acquisitions, the 2d Circuit found that the imposition of a fraud sentence was a "final adjudication" within the context of a dishonest acts exclusion, and that the insurer was entitled to a finding of no coverage and recoupment of previously advanced defence costs, even though the insured officer's appeal of the sentence remained pending.

Another coverage issue that insurers and insureds have struggled over in the U.S. is whether separate claims involving interrelated wrongful acts should be deemed a single claim made at the time the earliest claim was first made.

In Nomura Holdings v Federal, the 2nd Circuit held that because five residential mortgage-backed securities actions relating to the subprime crisis related back to a lawsuit filed before the policy inception, the claim was not first made in the applicable policy period and the claims made coverage was not available. The court was critical of the factual nexus test applied in other cases, but reached its holding based on the unambiguous definition of "interrelated wrongful acts" in the relevant policy.

  1. In another case, W.C. and A.N. Miller Devel. Corp, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants fraudulently transferred assets to frustrate enforcement of a judgment. The 4th Circuit found that the interrelated wrongful acts definition was expansive and unambiguous. The court determined that the two lawsuits were a single claim as they arose from the same land development project, the same contract, a dispute over the same fee and were brought by the same claimant. 2


1 For example, in May 2015, Vice Chancellor Laster refused to approve a disclosure only settlement relating to Cobham's acquisition of Aeroflex. In September 2015, Vice Chancellor Glasscock granted approval of a settlement in the Riverbed case, but indicated reluctance to approve disclosure only settlements and attorney fees awards. In Oct. 2015, Vice Chancellor Laster rejected another disclosure only settlement relating to Hewlett-Packard's acquisition of Aruba Networks. In Jan. 2016, Chancellor Bouchard rejected a disclosure settlement arising out of Zillow's acquisition of Trulia

2 In producing this article we consulted a number of sources for which we give thanks. These are:

  • Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings 2015 year in Review, NERA Economic Consulting and SEC Enforcement Activity Against Public Company Defendants
  • Recent trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2015 Full-Year Review
  • Berkeley Law (Cain & Solomon), Takeover Litigation in 2015
  • 2015 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program.

To view the original article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.