today:
217
yesterday:
219
Total:
1,004,133

Articles about Careers

D&O라고 하는것이 바로 회사의 중책을 맡은 사람들의 개인적 Liability 로부터 보호하기 위하여 들어 놓는 보험입니다. Directors and Officers의 List를 자주 update하는것도 중요하고, 또 Directors라는 title은 없지만, 회사의 중책을 맡아 결정적인 영향을 할 경우에도 List에 올려놓은 것이 중요하겠습니다.

 

먼저도 말씀드렸던 것처럼, 회사에서 employee로서 고용되어 일을 한다 해도, 법적 소송건을 보면, 대부분, 해당 Manager 와 회사를 상대로 한꺼번에 소송을 제기 하기 때문에, 개인적으로 이 보험에 가입되어 있지 않다면, 개인적인 재산이 위험에 노출되어 있는 것입니다.

 

따라서 대부분의 회사들이 EPLI와 D&O Liability Insurance는 함께 들어 놓고 있습니다.

자세한 내용은 아래 참조하시기 바랍니다.

 

 

 

Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (often called D&O) is liability insurance payable to the directors and officers of a company, or to the organization(s) itself, to cover damages or defense costs in the event they suffer such losses as a result of a lawsuit for alleged wrongful acts while acting in their capacity as directors and officers for the organization. Such coverage can extend to defense costs arising out of criminal and regulatory investigations/trials as well; in fact, often civil and criminal actions are brought against directors/officers simultaneously. It has become closely associated with broader management liability insurance, which covers liabilities of the corporation as well as the personal liabilities for the directors and officers of the corporation.[1]

Under the "traditional" D&O policy applied to "public companies" (those having securities trading under national securities exchanges), there are three (3) insuring clauses. These insuring clauses are termed: Insuring Clause 1 (Side-A); Insuring Clause 2 (Side-B); and Insuring Clause 3 (Side-C). Contemporary (competitive) D&O policies also provide for Insuring Clause 4 (Side-D), which provides for a $250,000 sublimit for investigative costs coverage related to a shareholder derivative demand.

Side-A (Insuring Clause 1) provides coverage to individual directors and officers when not indemnified by the corporation (as a result of state law or financial capability of the corporation) Side-B (Insuring Clause 2) provides coverage for the corporation when it indemnifies the directors and officers (corporate reimbursement) Side-C (Insuring Clause 3) provides coverage to the corporation itself for securities claims brought against it

Note - more extensive (broader) coverage can be obtained for individual directors and officers under a Broad Form  Side-A DIC ("Difference in Conditions") policy purchased to not only provide excess Side-A coverage but also to fill the gaps in coverage under the traditional policy, respond when the traditional policy does not, protect the individual directors and officers in the face of U.S.  bankruptcy courts from wrongfully deeming the D&O policy a part of the bankruptcy estate and otherwise more fully protect the personal assets of individual directors and officers.

At its roots, D&O insurance insures "behavior" in that the decisions of directors and officers are the matters which often lead to covered claims. That is, an incorrect decision often leads to shareholder discontent and, thus, a lawsuit against the directors and officers who made the decision. State law typically protects the directors and officers from liability (particularly exculpatory provisions under state law relating to directors) but this does not mean that actions are not brought by private plaintiffs (aggravated by the loss of money and seeking a quick payout from insurance proceeds). As such, even innocent errors in judgment by executives will bring D&O insurance into the forefront of the matter; especially because most "D&O" claims are settled before going to trial. The key, apparently, is the motion to dismiss stage of civil litigation (at least in the U.S.A.).

Typical sources of claims include shareholders, shareholder-derivative actions, customers, regulators (including those that would bring civil and criminal charges), and competitors (for anti-trust or unfair trade practice allegations). The extent of coverage is dramatically dictated by the fact the company is publicly traded or privately held. For instance, publicly traded companies (themselves) are only covered for securities claims.

In terms of basic state corporate law (at least in the U.S.A.), directors and officers of a corporation can be liable if they damage the corporation by breaching their duties and contracts to the corporation, mix personal and business assets, or fail to disclose conflicts of interest. In the United States, under state corporate law, corporations are often mandated to indemnify directors and officers of companies incorporated in that state in order to encourage people to take the positions. That being said, there exist extensive situations in which either the corporation is only permitted to indemnify the director or officer or the company is explicitly forbidden from indemnifying such director or officer. Liabilities which aren't indemnified by the corporation are potentially covered by certain types of D&O insurance (particularly Side-A Broad Form DIC policies).[2] However, the policies have exclusions and must be read carefully.

D&O insurance is usually purchased by the company itself, even when it is for the sole benefit of directors and officers. Reasons for doing so are many, but commonly would assist a company in attracting and retaining directors. Where a country's legislation prevents the company from purchasing the insurance, a premium split between the directors and the company is often done, so as to demonstrate that the directors have paid a portion of the premium. Problems related to income tax liability may come into play when a corporation avoids country specific liability law in order to protect its individual directors and officers through insurance.

A common misperception of D&O insurance is that it makes directors or officers able to engage in acts they know to be wrong; this is not the case. Intentional illegal acts or any illegal gains/profits obtained by directors/officers are not covered under most D&O insurance policies; coverage would only extend to "wrongful acts" as defined under the policy, which may include certain acts, omissions, misstatements while acting as a director/officer of the organization. Exclusionary language, however, would not provide coverage for fraud, illegal profits/gains, or intentional/wanton illegal conduct by such director/officer (as examples).

The basic principle underlying the acceptance of D&O insurance is that companies (and their shareholders) are best served by knowledgeable directors and officers who take strategic risks based upon the information reasonably available to them at the time the decision is made, without the threat of personal liability. By doing so, it is believed, corporations are better able to attract qualified, intelligent, and reasonable directors and officers to manage the operations of the company. Not only would this result in better returns for shareholders but also benefit society in general (due to the increased productivity, jobs created, and advancement of products due to such calculated business decisions). Under the law of states in the U.S.A. and most capitalistic based economies, directors and officers are not "insurers" of their business decisions made in furtherance of the company they serve. This includes the advancement of not only the shareholders, but also the company itself, its customers, and the constituents of the company (such as employees, a particular town, community, charity etc.). In addition to D&O insurance (which fills the gaps), state law ensures that reasonable, calculated, and well-processed decisions (see "business judgment rule"), that are made by the executives of a company, will be made without fear of personal financial loss should their well thought-out plan not come to fruition. As practical and sound as that proposition may sound, it is still within the power of states and individual companies to deny such executives indemnification for claims that arise out of their well intended efforts. As a result, D&O insurance exists.

In contemporary times (particularly in the U.S.), directors and officers (especially those most sought out by shareholders due to their ability to produce results) are intimately concerned with a company's directors & officers liability insurance program. Under state law, their personal assets are at risk (not to mention their hard-earned reputation). Thus, companies with quality D&O insurance coverage are the most suited to attract the best directors and officers to serve the corporation. Ultimately, it is a cost/benefit analysis...you get what you pay for...


The leaders in the provision of Directors & Officers Liability Insurance include: Chartis, Chubb Corp., The Travelers Companies, ACE Limited, XL Group, Zurich Financial Services, HCC Insurance Holdings, The Hartford, and CNA Financial(among many others).

In the United Kingdom the majority of contracts are facilitated on behalf of policyholders by intermediary brokers. Leading players in this field include Marsh, Willis, Howden and the Lark Group.

Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company managed by Warren Buffett, does not purchase D&O insurance for its directors, unlike most similar companies. Warren Buffett believes that the directors should face consequences of their mistakes the way that other shareholders do.[3]

 

Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org

 

** 상기 내용은 무단 복제를 금합니다.

** 상기 내용에 따른 모든 Liability 본인에게 있음을 알려드립니다.

** Counsel은 법률 자문이 아닙니다. 따라서 소송에 관련된 건은 전문 변호사와 상담하시는것이 좋겠습니다.

** 추가 질문이 있는 경우에는 아래에 댓들을 달아주시면 회신드리겠습니다.

 

No. Subject Date Views
81 FMLA - Benefits and Protections 2012.01.15 1179
80 OT에 관하여 2012.11.19 1187
79 IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO 2012 FSA PARTICIPANTS - FSA를 가입하셨나요? 어떻게 2012를 마무리해야 할까요? 2012.11.30 1201
78 Litigation Cases (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 잘못 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건- 2) 2011.11.28 1210
77 Paystub에 Social Security Number를 Full로 사용하는것이 법에 저촉이 될까? 2013.03.03 1212
76 What if I lost my job and cannot work because of the disaster or emergency? 만약에 재난으로 실직을 당했다면 그래도 실직수당을 받을 수 있을까? 2011.12.13 1232
75 Caldwell Freight Lines to Pay $120K to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit 2012.08.04 1240
74 FMLA - Basic Leave Entitlement 2012.01.15 1243
73 주정부에 내는 세금과 주정부 혜택은 어떤 관련이 있을까? 2013.06.08 1272
72 OSHA History 2012.02.26 1281
71 Article : Love Contract 2012.10.22 1281
70 Who is Eligible for DUA? 2011.12.13 1299
69 연령 차별' 해고 60대에 2600만달러 배상 2014.03.01 1323
68 Owner of 25 McDonald's Restaurants to Pay $1 Million in EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit 2012.08.04 1324
67 Unemployment Benefits After Moving Out of State 2015.04.29 1324
66 Orange County Register Class Action $30 million Settlement 2012.03.10 1338
65 10 ways to limit holiday party liquor liability 2012.12.04 1369
64 FSA - Allowable Medical Expenses - 어떤 비용들이 해당이 될까요? 2012.11.30 1381
63 Hire할 때, Terminate 시킬 때, LOA 때 반드시 갖추어야 할 HR 서류 List (CA) 2012.08.22 1387
62 IRS Tax Bracket 2012.02.19 1394
61 FSA - Plan시 주의사항 2012.02.19 1401
60 State Tax Bracket - California 2012.02.19 1418
59 Comfort Inn Oceanfront South Sued By EEOC for Religious Discrimination 2012.08.04 1420
58 FSA - 실제로 세금혜택을 어느정도 보는 것일까? 2012.02.19 1425
57 How to apply UI in CA 갑자기 직장을 잃게 되었을 경우, 어떻게 도움을 받을수 있을까? 2011.11.20 1430
56 FSA - Changing Your Deduction 언제 바꿀수 있을까요? 2012.02.19 1432
55 Fremont Toyota Pays $400,000 to Settle EEOC's Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit -Press Release-08-07-12 2012.08.18 1448
54 FSA - are there individuals who are not eligible to participage in a Section 125 Plan? 2012.02.19 1450
53 Employee vs Independent Contractor - EDD Guideline 2012.03.10 1453
52 McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit 2013.12.27 1455
51 Fremont Toyota Pays $400,000 to Settle EEOC's Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit - Allegation 2012.08.19 1459
50 OSHA - Sec. 3. Definitions 2012.02.26 1460
49 AT&T Workers Claim Lunch Break Violations 2013.03.03 1461
48 OSHA - Health and Safety Standards 2012.02.26 1471
47 Mississippi Holiday Inn Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Pregnancy Discrimination 2013.09.02 1492
46 No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: ConocoPhillips to pay $15.5 Million to Settle Meal Break Lawsuit 2013.03.03 1502
45 FSA - Employer로서 주의할 사항은? 2012.02.19 1527
44 $192,500-EEOC settles Sex harassment and Retaliation Suit Against Grace Episcopal Church 2013.05.26 1558
43 OSHA - Accident Investigation 2012.02.26 1574
42 Employee vs Independent Contractor - IRS Guideline 2012.03.10 1575
41 Definition of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Right Act (CFRA) 2012.08.18 1585
40 FSA - What is the tax advantage of a Section 125 plan? 구체적으로 세금 혜텍이란 어떤것인가? 2012.02.19 1586
39 $22.5 Million Verdict Reversed Where Employer Admitted Its Vicarious Liability For Employee’s Negligence 2013.05.28 1599
38 Overtime 수당은 누가 언제 받을 수 있을까요? 2011.11.27 1608
37 FSA( Flexible Spending Account ) Grace Period 2012.02.18 1616
36 OSHA - Sec. 17. Penalties 2012.02.26 1623
35 AT&T to Pay Quarter Million Dollars to Settle EEOC Agen Disrimination Suit 2013.09.02 1646
34 Remedies For Employment Discrimination 2012.03.17 1658
33 $7 Billion Lost in payroll tax revenue - President Obama's 2010 Budget estimated for independent contractor misclassification 2012.03.10 1686
32 Panda Express Agrees to Early Settlement with EEOC to Resolve Sexual Harassment Suit 2013.06.08 1699