On March 16th, the Fifth Circuit held that a separate parallel coverage action was required to determine whether D&O insurers were required to pay for the defense of individual defendants in the cases stemming from the alleged Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen Stanford. Addressing the "money laundering" exclusion in the policy, the Court held that the policy's terms require the insurer to pay defense costs until it is determined that money laundering, as defined by the policy, occurred "in fact." The "in fact" determination must be made by a court in a separate, parallel coverage action, in which all admissible evidence may be introduced. Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London.