This past May, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") fined the investment management arm of a major U.S. bank $1.5 million for ESG violations.

Since the mid-1990s, and especially since the rush of insurance claims following the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, insurance companies increasingly have turned to outside counsel to assist or supervise the handling of all sorts of insurance claims.

The current financial crisis is making corporate directors nervous. However, quitting may not be the right response in many cases, especially since even former directors remain vulnerable on several liability fronts.

Professional organizations and practitioners rely on errors and omissions (E&O) insurance — also known as professional liability insurance or malpractice insurance — to protect against the risk that a disgruntled customer or client will bring a claim for malpractice.

It all starts with a simple contract. Insurance Company sells a policy promising to defend Policyholder against, and pay damages for, certain claims filed against Policyholder.

The corporate and business changes are permanent. Below is a summary of some of the tax law's major provisions.

A time-honored method of providing security for the performance of a contract is the surety bond. Two parties enter into a contract, and a third party, the surety, promises to perform the obligation if its principal fails to do so.

For decades, excess liability insurance policies provided that excess insurers were not required to pay out unless the full limits of underlying insurance were exhausted "in the payment of claims" or by "actual payments.

When facing a loss, the first rule of insurance recovery is “think insurance.” Daily headlines describe the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, the impact on the financial markets and investment community, as well as the hardships suffered by individual borrowers.

Arbitration provisions are becoming increasingly common in insurance policies, particularly where specialty coverage is concerned. Many legal practitioners favor arbitration over litigation, depending on the nature of the case.

Something has gone wrong — something unfore¬seen, unfortunate, and expensive. An insurance company’s refusal to pay a claim can be devastat¬ing. Now you have a two-front war: You must contend with the cost and consequence of your loss and deal with your insurance company’s refusal to pay.

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provided a more expansive criterion for the admission of expert testimony than the previously reigning Frye test.

As lawyers, it seems like hardly a day goes by without receiving a suspicious email.