March 01, 2024
A California federal court's recent decision in AmTrust v. 180 Life Sciences, requiring insurers to advance defense costs for a potentially covered claim, provides a valuable road map for directors and officers insurance policyholders, rebutting the common presumption that a D&O insurer's duty to advance costs is more limited than under other policies, say attorneys at Pasich.
February 13, 2024
A drug development company formed by a merger is entitled to insurance payments for expenses it paid two of its former officers in connection with federal subpoenas because the insurer failed to show that an exclusion applied, a California federal judge ruled Monday.
August 28, 2023
A drug development company born out of a merger is once again seeking coverage for expenses it advanced to two of its former officers in connection with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas, telling a California federal court that a change-in-control exclusion is inapplicable.
April 24, 2023
A drug development company born out of a merger does not have coverage for expenses it advanced to two of its former officers in connection with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas, a California federal court ruled, saying the company hasn't shown that a change-in-control exclusion is inapplicable.
December 21, 2022
A drug development company born out of a merger doesn't have coverage for costs incurred from responding to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas, insurers told a California federal court, arguing that the new company doesn't qualify as a named insured under the prior firm's directors and officers policy.
November 23, 2022
A drug development company born out of a merger asked a California federal court to find that directors and officers' insurance held under its former name must cover costs incurred by former leaders forced to respond to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas.