In a much-anticipated decision, New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, on June 11, 2013, unanimously rejected a group of insurers’ attempt to invoke purported “public policy” considerations to avoid covering a settlement between a former broker-dealer and clearing firm and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The opinion in J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance Co., No. 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. June 11, 2013), is welcome news for policyholders forced to deal with the insurance industry’s increasingly aggressive assertions of purported “public policy” principles to disavow obligations imposed under insurance contracts, especially when seeking coverage for “disgorgement” claims asserted by government authorities and private parties.
The underlying claims giving rise to the coverage dispute involved allegations that a former broker-dealer and clearing firm (the “Insureds”) improperly facilitated “late trading” and “market timing” on behalf of certain of their customers. The SEC’s investigation into these matters was resolved through an Order pursuant to which the Insureds agreed to...
Please see full alert below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: Broker-Dealer, Contract Interpretation, Disgorgement, Insurers, Public Policy, SEC
Published In: Business Torts Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, General Business Updates, Insurance Updates, Securities Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising