LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 99
0 members and 99 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Thread: SOX (not socks)
View Single Post
Old 08-23-2006, 10:17 PM   #8
LessinSF
Wearing the cranky pants
 
LessinSF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pulling your finger
Posts: 6,979
SOX

Quote:
Originally posted by purse junkie
Speaking of which, any word on the insurance implications ...
As an insurance lawyer, I read the quoted act to mean that a laywer has to report "evidence of a material
violation of securities law or breach of fiduciary duty" to the client or the issuer, with no distinction as to whether that evidence was material or not.

Preliminarily, I am not sure that this will stand judicial scrutiny. Does an attorney have to report every crackpot theory she may hear? That said, I understand that the question relates to the atty's insurance, and:

1) It should be insurable, being that negligent (as opposed to intentional) failures to report such "evidence" appears to be a violation;

(2) As such, a standard E&O polcy (not D&O, unless the attorney is an officer or director, as opposed to outside counsel) should cover it;

(3) Will carriers create exclusions, and then offer an amendatory rider granting limited coverage back?

(4) yes, if they are smart, given the exposure arising out of, um, shall we say, marginally ethical attorneys involved in the corporate scandals of the last 10 years; but

(5) insurance company's aren't generally pre-emptively smart in that way. They will have to get burned first.

LessinDublin
__________________
Boogers!
LessinSF is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 PM.