DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is Securities Fraud?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BUELL IN PRINTER PROOF 11/11/2011 5:38:12 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 61 DECEMBER 2011 NUMBER 3 WHAT IS SECURITIES FRAUD? SAMUEL W. BUELL† ABSTRACT As Rule 10b-5 approaches the age of seventy, deep familiarity with this supremely potent and consequential provision of American administrative law has obscured its lack of clear conceptual content. The rule, as written, interpreted, and enforced, is missing a fully developed connection to—of all things—fraud. Fraud is difficult to define. Several approaches are plausible. But the law of securities fraud, and much of the commentary about that body of law, has neither attempted such a definition nor acknowledged its necessity to the coherence and effectiveness of the doctrine. Securities fraud’s lack of mooring in a fully developed concept of fraud produces at least three costs: public and private actions are not brought on behalf of clearly specified regulatory objectives; the line between civil and criminal liability has become unacceptably blurred; and the law has come to provide at best a weak means of resolving vital public questions about wrongdoing in financial markets. The agenda of this Article is threefold. First, this Article illuminates and clarifies the relationship between securities fraud and fraud and structures a discussion of legal reform that more explicitly connects Copyright © 2011 by Samuel W. Buell. † Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law. I am grateful for the helpful questions and comments of Tom Baker, Sara Sun Beale, Stuart Benjamin, Ben Depoorter, Lisa Kern Griffin, Kim Krawiec, Dan Markel, James Park, and participants in workshops at Duke University School of Law, Willamette University College of Law, Notre Dame Law School, and Florida State University College of Law. Many thanks to Calvin Winder for research assistance of true excellence. BUELL IN PRINTER PROOF 11/11/2011 5:38:12 PM 512 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 61:511 securities fraud remedies with the purposes of a regime of securities regulation. Second, it clarifies the line between civil and criminal liability. And third, this Article seeks a better understanding of what is being asked when legal actors and the public wonder whether to label an important instance of market failure “fraud.” TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .............................................................................................512 I. What Is Fraud?....................................................................................520 A. The Question Is Hard and Important.................................520 B. Some Axes of Fraud .............................................................522 C. Mental State and Fraud........................................................526 1. Core Fraud Versus Misrepresentation ...........................526 2. Goal Versus Awareness ...................................................530 3. Level of Awareness...........................................................534 4. Criminal Fault....................................................................537 II. What Is Securities Fraud? ................................................................540 A. Structure of the Statutory and Regulatory Scheme ..........541 B. Elements, According to the Federal Courts ......................545 C. The Scienter Mess .................................................................548 1. Private Lawsuits ................................................................548 2. SEC Actions.......................................................................553 3. Criminal Prosecutions.......................................................555 D. Insider Trading ......................................................................561 E. Securities Fraud Remains Undefined.................................564 III. Improving the Law of Securities Fraud.........................................565 A. Costs of the Status Quo ........................................................565 B. Objectives for Reform ..........................................................568 1. Fraud and the Purposes of Securities Regulation .........568 2. The Civil-Criminal Line ...................................................572 3. Capitalizing on Expressive Capital .................................573 C. Reform Angles ......................................................................576 1. Amend the Statutes and Rules ........................................576 2. Repair the Doctrine in the Courts ..................................579 Conclusion................................................................................................581 INTRODUCTION The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently leveled a highly publicized enforcement action against the venerable investment banking and securities firm, Goldman Sachs. When the BUELL IN PRINTER PROOF 11/11/2011 5:38:12 PM 2011] WHAT IS SECURITIES FRAUD? 513 suit was filed, the headlines blared, “U.S. Charges Goldman Sachs with Fraud.”1 The theory of the case was that Goldman had sold a German bank a derivative product tied to the fate of a basket of mortgage-backed securities, while simultaneously obscuring the weaknesses of the securities in that basket. According to the SEC, Goldman obfuscated the matter by touting the role of a reputable independent firm in the selection of the underlying securities and by failing to disclose that a player who was betting against the securities was also allowed to participate in the selection process.2 A lively public discussion followed about whether Goldman, widely tagged as a symbol of bubble-era greed, was also crooked. Did the Goldman bankers deserve condemnation for purposely exploiting the naïveté of investors, so they could profit from the sale of products that were bets on a market Goldman knew was bound to crash?3 Although the transaction involved in the SEC’s lawsuit was small by Goldman’s standards, its structure implicated big questions about the culpability of global banks for inflating a market in mortgage-derived 4 securities that was practically designed to self-destruct. 1. E.g., Francesco Guerrera & Henny Sender, Goldman Sachs Splash, FIN. TIMES, Apr. 17, 2010, at 1; Louise Story & Gretchen Morgenson, S.E.C. Accuses Goldman of Fraud in Housing Deal, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 17, 2010, at A1; Gregory Zuckerman, Susanne Craig & Serena Ng, U.S. Charges Goldman Sachs with Fraud, WALL ST. J., Apr. 17, 2010, at A1. 2. Complaint at 7–11, SEC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 10-CV-3229 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2010). 3. See, e.g., Editorial, After Goldman, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 22, 2010, at A28 (characterizing Goldman’s conduct as gambling on the market); Paul Krugman, Op-Ed., Looters in Loafers, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 19, 2010, at A23 (“[N]ow the S.E.C. is charging that Goldman created and marketed securities that were deliberately designed to fail, so that an important client could make money off that failure. That’s what I would call looting.”); John Carney, Goldman Sachs Girds for Battle with the SEC over Fraud Case, CNBC.COM (May 26, 2010, 4:00 PM ET), http:// www.cnbc.com/id/37362236/Goldman_Sachs_Girds_for_Battle_With_the_SEC_Over_Fraud_ Case (“A sticking point for Goldman is the SEC’s fraud allegations. The company is unwilling to agree to any settlement that would have the appearance of affirming that Goldman committed fraud, a person familiar with the matter says. However, Goldman might be willing to settle a case alleging that Goldman was only negligent in omitting a material fact in marketing the deal, the person said.”); Abigail Field, Deconstructing Goldman Sachs’s Fraud Defense, DAILY FIN. (Apr. 19, 2010, 1:45 PM), http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/deconstruct ing-goldman-sachss-fraud-defense/19444284 (evaluating the merits of the SEC’s complaint and Goldman’s defense); Tom Granahan, In Defense of Goldman Sachs, FOX BUS. (Apr. 21, 2010), http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/04/21/defense-goldman-sachs (questioning whether Goldman’s sale of assets should really be labeled fraudulent solely because a third party believed the assets were weak). 4. Complaint, supra note 2, at 1. See generally MICHAEL LEWIS, THE BIG SHORT: INSIDE THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE 6–10, 14–15 (2010) (“All these subprime lending companies were growing so rapidly, and using such goofy accounting, that they could mask the fact that they had no real earnings, just illusory, accounting-driven, ones.”). BUELL IN PRINTER PROOF 11/11/2011 5:38:12 PM 514 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 61:511 Did Goldman commit fraud? This seems like an important question to answer.5 Indeed, given that the damages at issue in the suit were unlikely to threaten Goldman seriously,6 this enforcement action seems to have served no greater public purpose than letting the public know whether Goldman committed fraud—thereby informing the public what such an institution is capable of and instructing other institutions and their managers about what is expected of them. But the public never got an answer to this question. A large part of the explanation for this lacuna lies in the procedural habits and economics of SEC enforcement actions. As did the Goldman case, these actions almost all settle without a trial, and almost always with the alleged perpetrator of fraud “neither admit[ting] nor deny[ing]” the SEC’s claims.7 Because the facts of the Goldman case were never developed with any granularity—and because Goldman admitted nothing—the great case of “U.S. Charges Goldman Sachs with Fraud” simply evaporated, leaving hardly a trace 8 beyond the $550 million fine that
Recommended publications
  • U.S. V. Connie Moorman Willis

    U.S. V. Connie Moorman Willis

    Case 5:17-mj-01008-PRL Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1 AO 91 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Middle District of Florida United States of America ) v. ) ) CONNIE MOORMAN WILLIS Case No. ) 5: 17-mj-1008-PRL ) ) ) Defendant(s) I CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I i I, 1~he complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. On or about the date(s) of Feb. 4, 2011 through Jan. 25, 2016 in the county of Marion in the I Middle District of Florida , the defendant(s) violated: ! j Code Section Offense Description 18 u.s.c. 1 sec. 656 Theft by a Bank Employee 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 Mail Fraud Tnis criminal complaint is based on these facts: I I See attached affidavit. I lifl Continued on the attached sheet. Charles Johnsten, U.S. Postal Inspector Printed name and title Sworn to before me and signed in my presence. Date: ~-1 - :lo Ir City and siate: Ocala, Florida Philip R. Lammens, U.S. Magistrate Judge Printed name and title I ! Case 5:17-mj-01008-PRL Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID 2 S'FATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 5:17-mj-1008-PRL I IOUNTY OF MARION AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I, Charles Johnsten, being duly sworn, state as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. I am a United States Postal Inspector and have been so employed since I obcember 2016.
  • United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Southern Division

    United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Southern Division

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In re HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION ) Master File No. CV-03-BE-1500-S SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) This Document Relates To: All Actions ) ) In re HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION ) Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION ) ) CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: All Actions ) ) In re HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION ) Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1502-S BONDHOLDER LITIGATION ) ) CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: All Actions ) ) JOINT SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS [FACTUAL BASIS] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 The Scheme..........................................................................................................................3 Ernst & Young’s Participation in the Fraudulent Scheme...................................................5 Underwriters’ Knowing Involvement..................................................................................8 Financial Fraud ..................................................................................................................14 Medicare Fraud ..................................................................................................................15 Passage of the Balanced Budget Act and Defendants’ Sale of Stock and Notes...............16 Defendants Reinflate the Price of
  • Identity Theft What to Do If It Happens To

    Identity Theft What to Do If It Happens To

    Identity Theft: What to Do if It Happens to You You apply for a credit card and get turned down because of a low credit score. Yet you know that you’ve always paid your accounts on time. A debt collector calls to demand payment on a six-month overdue account for a credit card you have never had. You receive a credit card in the mail that you’ve never applied for. What’s happening? You could be a victim of identity theft, where an imposter is using your personal information. The identity thief could use your personal information for any of the following: • They may call your credit card issuer to change the billing address on your credit card account. The imposter then runs up charges on your account. Because your bills are being sent to a different address, it may be some time before you realize there’s a problem. • They may open new credit card accounts in your name. When they use the credit cards and don’t pay the bills, the delinquent accounts are reported on your credit report. • They may establish phone or wireless service in your name. • They may open a bank account in your name and write bad checks on that account. • They may counterfeit checks or credit or debit cards, or authorize electronic transfers in your name and drain your bank account. • They may file for bankruptcy under your name to avoid paying debits they’ve incurred under you name or to avoid eviction. • They may buy a car by taking out an auto loan in your name.
  • Fraud, Forgery and Vigilance in Banking Sector

    Fraud, Forgery and Vigilance in Banking Sector

    THAVAN IJREB Vol-1, No-2 Jan-Mar 2012 ISSN: 2277-1476 Fraud, forgery and Vigilance in Banking Sector Alekhya Reddy Student, HNLU, Raipur, [email protected] Abstract- Banks are the engines that drive the 1969 and 6 more on 15 April 1980. The Indian operations in the financial sector, which is vital banking system is indeed unique and perhaps for the economy. With the nationalization of has no parallels in the banking history of any banks in 1969, they also have emerged as country in the world.1 engines for social change and have become indispensable in a modern society. Banks play a The Indian Banking system performs a crucial critical role in economic development of a role in economic development of India through nation. The increase in banking operations is saving-investment.2Banks are the engines that now accompanied by an increase in frauds in drive the operations in the financial sector, the banking sector. In this paper the first chapter which is vital for the economy. With the deals with an introduction to banking and nationalization of banks in 1969, they also have related frauds. The second chapter focuses on emerged as engines for social change. After Fraud and Forgery, subsequently the Next Independence, the banks have passed through Chapter deal with Fraud and Forgeries in three stages. They have moved from the Banking sector with relevant legal provisions. character based lending to ideology based The fourth chapter deals with measures for lending to today competitiveness based lending prevention and detection of such discrepancies, in the context of India's economic liberalization followed by the vigilance in banking sector and policies and the process of linking with the the fifth chapter deals with Legal regime global economy.
  • 2015 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

    2015 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

    §2B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2015 PART B - BASIC ECONOMIC OFFENSES 1. THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT, RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY, PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AND OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUD OR DECEIT Introductory Commentary These sections address basic forms of property offenses: theft, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting (other than offenses involving altered or counterfeit bearer obligations of the United States), insider trading, transactions in stolen goods, and simple property damage or destruction. (Arson is dealt with separately in Chapter Two, Part K (Offenses Involving Public Safety)). These guidelines apply to offenses prosecuted under a wide variety of federal statutes, as well as offenses that arise under the Assimilative Crimes Act. Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (see Appendix C, amendment 303); November 1, 2001 (see Appendix C, amendment 617). §2B1.1. Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States (a) Base Offense Level: (1) 7, if (A) the defendant was convicted of an offense referenced to this guideline; and (B) that offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more; or (2) 6, otherwise. (b) Specific Offense Characteristics (1) If the loss exceeded $6,500, increase the offense level as follows: Loss (Apply the Greatest) Increase
  • Mail and Wire Fraud: an Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law

    Mail and Wire Fraud: an Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law

    Mail and Wire Fraud: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law Updated February 11, 2019 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R41931 SUMMARY R41931 Mail and Wire Fraud: An Abbreviated February 11, 2019 Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle The mail and wire fraud statutes are exceptionally broad. Their scope has occasionally given the Senior Specialist in courts pause. Nevertheless, prosecutions in their name have brought to an end schemes that have American Public Law bilked victims out of millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars. The statutes proscribe (1) [email protected] causing the use of the mail or wire communications, including email; (2) in conjunction with a scheme to intentionally defraud another of money or property; (3) by means of a material For a copy of the full report, deception. The offenses, along with attempts or conspiracies to commit them, carry a term of please call 7-.... or visit imprisonment of up to 30 years in some cases, followed by a term of supervised release. www.crs.gov. Offenders also face the prospect of fines, orders to make restitution, and forfeiture of their property. The mail and wire fraud statutes overlap with a surprising number of other federal criminal statutes. Conduct that supports a prosecution under the mail or wire fraud statutes will often support prosecution under one or more other criminal provision(s). These companion offenses include (1) those that use mail or wire fraud as an element of a separate offense, like racketeering or money laundering; (2) those that condemn fraud on some jurisdictional basis other than use of the mail or wire communications, like those that outlaw defrauding the federal government or federally insured banks; and (3) those that proscribe other deprivations of honest services (i.e., bribery and kickbacks), like the statutes that ban bribery of federal officials or in connection with federal programs.
  • Prosecuting Securities Fraud Under Section 17(A)(2)

    Prosecuting Securities Fraud Under Section 17(A)(2)

    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 50 Issue 3 Spring 2019 Article 11 2019 Prosecuting Securities Fraud Under Section 17(a)(2) Wendy Gerwick Couture Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Wendy Gerwick Couture, Prosecuting Securities Fraud Under Section 17(a)(2), 50 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 669 (). Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol50/iss3/11 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized editor of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Prosecuting Securities Fraud Under Section 17(a)(2) Wendy Gerwick Couture* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 669 I. STATUTES CRIMINALIZING VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(A)(2) AND RULE 10B-5 ........................................................................... 670 II. “IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF ANY SECURITIES” VERSUS “IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY SECURITY” ............................................................................ 673 III. “TO OBTAIN MONEY OR PROPERTY” ELEMENT ...................... 679 IV. “BY MEANS OF” VERSUS “MAKE” .......................................... 683 V. “WILLFULLY” VERSUS “WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY” ......... 684 VI. IMPLICATIONS OF PROSECUTING SECURITIES FRAUD UNDER SECTION 17(A)(2) .................................................................
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 9, 2019 for More Information, Contact

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 9, 2019 for More Information, Contact

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 9, 2019 For more information, contact: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs 202-514-2007 U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Florida 850-216-3845 [email protected] SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ADDS DEVELOPER/ENTREPRENEUR TO RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA – A federal grand jury has returned a forty-seven count superseding indictment against suspended Tallahassee City Commissioner Scott Charles Maddox, 51, Tallahassee political consultant Janice Paige Carter-Smith, 54, and John Thomas Burnette, 42, all of Tallahassee, Florida. Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Lawrence Keefe of the Northern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge Rachel Rojas of the FBI’s Jacksonville Field Office and Special Agent in Charge Mary Hammond of the IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Tampa Field Office made the announcement. In December 2018, a federal grand jury charged Maddox and Carter-Smith in a forty-four count indictment for conspiring to operate a racketeering enterprise that engaged in acts of bank fraud, extortion, honest-services fraud and bribery. That indictment also charged Maddox and Carter-Smith with substantive counts of bank fraud, false statements to financial institutions, extortion, honest-services fraud, use of interstate facilities to facilitate bribery, false statements to federal officers, conspiracy to interfere with the lawful function of the IRS, and filing false tax returns. The superseding indictment adds Burnette as a defendant and charges him with participating in the racketeering conspiracy and extortion, honest services mail fraud, the use of facilities in interstate commerce to facilitate bribery, and making false statements to federal officers.
  • Employee Fraud Detection Under Real World Conditions

    Employee Fraud Detection Under Real World Conditions

    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2010 Employee fraud detection under real world conditions Luell, J Abstract: Employee fraud in financial institutions is a considerable monetary and reputational risk. Stud- ies state that this type of fraud is typically detected by a tip, in the worst case from affected customers, which is fatal in terms of reputation. Consequently, there is a high motivation to improve analytic de- tection. We analyze the problem of client advisor fraud in a major financial institution and find that it differs substantially from other types of fraud. However, internal fraud at the employee level receives little attention in research. In this thesis, we provide an overview of fraud detection research with the focus on implicit assumptions and applicability. We propose a decision framework to find adequate fraud detection approaches for real world problems based on a number of defined characteristics. By applying the decision framework to the problem setting we met at Alphafin the chosen approach is motivated. The proposed system consists of a detection component and a visualization component. A number of imple- mentations for the detection component with a focus on tempo-relational pattern matching is discussed. The visualization component, which was converted to productive software at Alphafin in the course of the collaboration, is introduced. On the basis of three case studies we demonstrate the potential of the proposed system and discuss findings and possible extensions for further refinements. Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-44863 Dissertation Originally published at: Luell, J.
  • Comal County Sheriff's Office Financial Crimes Reporting Package

    Comal County Sheriff's Office Financial Crimes Reporting Package

    Comal County Sheriff’s Office Financial Crimes Reporting Package Identity Theft, Forgery, and Credit Card/Debit Card Abuse are among the most difficult offenses facing citizens today. In our ongoing efforts to combat these problems the following information is being offered by the Comal County Sheriff’s Office, Financial Crimes Unit. Please refer to the “Frequently Asked Questions” section on the following pages to find answers to questions regarding these offenses. This section will also guide you to the specific forms that need to be completed for each specific offense. The forms are included in this packet. Please note that it is very important that all instructions are followed regarding these forms and that each form is completed thoroughly and accurately for the investigator(s) to perform an extensive, detailed, and well documented investigation. If you have questions that are not answered in the “Frequently Asked Questions” section, you can contact the Comal County Sheriff’s Office, Criminal Investigation Division-Financial Crimes Unit, Detective Richard K. Smith at 830-643-6685. Once you complete the forms, you can hand deliver, mail or fax to the following address or number: Comal County Sheriff’s Office Completed, notarized forms can ATTN: Financial Crimes Unit also be faxed to Criminal 3005 W. San Antonio Street Investigations at 830-608-8269, New Braunfels, Texas 78130 Attn: Financial Crimes Unit Please note the business hours are Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm. Security video is used in the prosecution of most cases. Unfortunately some businesses do not keep video for extended periods of time. It is important that you make every effort to complete and return this Financial Fraud Package as soon as possible.
  • The Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002

    The Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002

    Calendar No. 366 107TH CONGRESS REPORT "! 2d Session SENATE 107–146 THE CORPORATE AND CRIMINAL FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2002 MAY 6, 2002.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [Including the cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] [To accompany S. 2010] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 2010) to provide for criminal prosecution of persons who alter or destroy evidence in certain Federal investigations or defraud in- vestors of publicly traded securities, to disallow debts incurred in violation of securities fraud laws from being discharged in bank- ruptcy, to protect whistleblowers against retaliation by their em- ployers, and for other purposes, having considered the same, re- ports favorably thereon, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 II. Background and need for the legislation ..................................................... 2 III. Section-by-section analysis and discussion .................................................. 11 IV. Committee consideration ............................................................................... 21 V. Votes of the Committee ................................................................................. 21 VI. Congressional Budget Office cost estimate
  • Applying the Fraud-Exclusion Provision Under D&O

    Applying the Fraud-Exclusion Provision Under D&O

    APPLYING THE FRAUD-EXCLUSION PROVISION UNDER D&O INSURANCE POLICIES: “ADJUDICATION” OR “IN FACT” – WHICH IS BETTER? Fang Liu* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 248 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................. 249 III. STRUCTURE OF A D&O INSURANCE POLICY ....... 252 IV. ANALYSIS OF D&O INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS ............................................................................ 252 V. EXCLUSION PROVISIONS .............................................. 254 A. Deliberate-Fraud Exclusion ........................................ 254 B. Alstrin: Problematic Reasoning and Holding .............. 257 C. AT & T: Adjudication or Settlement ............................ 259 D. PMI: An Ambiguous “Some-Evidentiary-Proof” Standard ........................................................................... 261 E. Which Approach Should Be Applied? .......................... 262 VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................... 263 * Fang Liu is an associate with Dickinson Wright PLLC in Ann Arbor, Michigan. She graduated from Peking University School of Law with an LL.B. degree in 1999. Ms. Liu was a corporate attorney with nine years of legal experience in China before she came to the United States. Ms. Liu received her J.D. degree, magna cum laude, from Western Michigan University Cooley Law School and an LL.M. degree with a business-law certificate from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Ms.