We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 408

Update from RAA Re Contracts Conference presentation on extra contractual obligations and losses in excess of policy limits

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2010

We have been tracking developments at the RAA Re Contracts Conference, which took place this week in New York, as previously reported on www

Presentation on dispute resolution clauses

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2010

Vince Vitkowsky of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP presented on Thursday concerning Dispute Resolution Clauses in reinsurance contracts, which specifically focused on arbitration clauses

Delaware Bankruptcy Court rules that directors & officers may access eroding policy despite company’s bankruptcy

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 22 2010

A federal judge has ruled that directors and officers of a company in bankruptcy proceedings may continue to access an eroding liability policy to cover their defense costs

United States Supreme Court asks for federal government's opinion on applicability of the McCarran-Ferguson Act to the New York Convention

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 22 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court recently asked the Solicitor General to file a brief on behalf of the United States expressing its views on whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention") and the federal legislation that enforces it, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), are subject to the reverse preemption provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act

New York state court finds that follow the settlements doctrine does not apply

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 21 2010

In American Home Assurance Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co., No. 60248506 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2010), the plaintiffs, several ceding companies, brought a declaratory judgment action against certain reinsurers (collectively, the “Reinsurers”) seeking reimbursement for portions of a settlement plaintiffs made with their insured, Monsanto Corporation

ERISA litigation: an update from the ALI-ABA conference on financial and insurance litigation

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 21 2010

ERISA litigation, once considered a dull backwater of the law, has been gaining increased interest and attention in recent years: the result of an aging population and an increasingly sophisticated and aggressive plaintiffs' bar

Class action procedure: the latest developments from ALI-ABA conference on insurance and financial services litigation

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2010

This panel offered the insights of a federal district court judge, defense counsel and plaintiffs' counsel regarding Class Action Procedure, focusing on trends regarding the class certification process

Changes in securities & insurance regulation affecting enforcement strategies ALI-ABA conference on insurance & financial services litigation

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2010

Speakers at the ALI-ABA's annual conference on insurance and financial services regulation in Chicago offered extensive commentary on changes in enforcement strategies for insurance and securities fraud, in light of recent overhauls to the regulatory scheme

Minnesota federal court rejects "capacity" limitation as to insured vs. insured exclusion

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2010

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota recently dismissed a directors and officers liability coverage suit, rejecting plaintiffs' argument that an underlying suit had to be brought by the insured in his capacity as an insured in order to implicate the policy's insured vs. insured exclusion