We don’t blog much about Delaware Superior Court decisions, but in this D&O Diary blog, Kevin LaCroix highlights a recent case that’s worth a read. Here’s Kevin’s intro:

One of the perennial D&O insurance issues involves the question whether “disgorgement” amounts awarded in SEC proceedings represent “penalties” for which insurance coverage is precluded. In the latest example of a case involving these issues, the Delaware Superior Court recently held, in reliance on the statutory provisions defining the SEC’s authority to seek monetary remedies, that the disgorgement amounts and prejudgment interest awarded against a large media company are not “penalties” for which coverage is precluded. As discussed below, the court’s analysis of the issues, and its reference to the relevant statutory provisions, is both detailed and instructive.

In explaining the decision and its implications, Kevin says:

Although I continue to view the Delaware Superior Court as generally favorable to policyholders, I don’t think this generalization explains the court’s decision here. I don’t think the court’s decision here can be understood as yet another example of this court’s policyholder proclivity.

The court’s reasoning here about whether or not “disgorgement” is a “penalty,” and therefore precluded from coverage, is based on the language of the statutory provisions authorizing the monetary remedies the SEC may seek. The court found a distinction in the statutory language between “penalties” on the one hand and “disgorgement” on the other, and, more importantly for purposes of the issues in dispute here, the court found further that the words used in the relevant policy provision “mirror” those securities law statutes. Both the statute and the policy provision, the court said, “delineate” between penalties on the one hand and disgorgement on the other.

In other words, the court’s decision is grounded in the relevant statutory provisions and corresponding policy language. Moreover, this connection to the relevant statutory provisions was sufficient for the court to reject the insurer’s attempt to rely on seemingly contradictory dictionary definitions of the term “penalties.”

As Kevin notes, the insurer is likely to appeal – and disputes on this issue are likely to continue. Here are his parting thoughts:

I suspect that in the future policyholders seeking coverage for disgorgement amounts will try to marshal the arguments that were successful here – that is, that the relevant statutory authority allowing the SEC to seek monetary remedies draws a distinction between “penalties” on the one hand, and disgorgement on the other hand, and that the relevant policy language “mirrors” this distinction.

– Liz Dunshee