As previously reported, here, on August 8, 2007, a jury convicted ex-Brocade CEO Greg Reyes for violating federal securities laws by failing to properly account for backdated options.   On August 18, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed Reyes’s conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct (but did not dismiss Reyes’ indictment). 

In an August 10, 2009  decision, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under certain circumstances, a D&O insurer may reasonably withhold its consent to settle a Claim. 

Earlier this summer, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division held that an arbitrator’s determination in an underlying claim triggered the intentional acts and personal profit exclusions in both a D&O and E&O policy.  The Court held that the arbitrator’s conclusions not only established the excluded behavior as a matter of fact, but also satisfied the D&O policy’s final adjudication requirement.  The Court then concluded that the insured was required to reimburse defense costs paid by both the D&O and E&O insurers. 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over securities claims brought by “F-Cubed” plaintiffs– i.e., a foreign investors who purchased shares in a foreign company on a foreign stock exchange.