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.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an “insured v. insured” clause exclusion in a D&O policy for claims asserted by an insured against an insured did not preclude the insurer from paying for the entire defense costs incurred by insured and non-insured claimants
On November 10, 2009, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of its nearly 350,000 certified public accountant members against the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to seek an injunction barring the FTC from applying its Red Flags Rule to AICPA members
In a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the court held that an insurer does not have to provide D&O insurance coverage to a group of bondholders who took on the responsibilities of the bankrupt insured
On July 30, 2009, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a $37.25 million settlement of a subprime-related securities class action styled, In re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation
