today:
122
yesterday:
242
Total:
1,004,280

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
281 Wage Order No. 1 - CA 2012.02.22 302
280 Wage Order No. 2 - CA 2012.02.22 305
279 Wage Order No. 7 - CA 2012.02.22 316
278 Wage Order No. 9 - CA 2012.02.22 316
277 Wage Order No. 3 - CA 2012.02.22 317
276 Wage Order No. 8 - CA 2012.02.22 318
275 Wage Order No. 10 - CA 2012.02.22 318
274 Wage Order No. 5- CA 2012.02.22 324
273 FMLA - Basic Leave Entitlement 2012.01.15 340
272 What's the Minimum Wage in CA? 나는 Min Wage를 받고 있는가? 2011.11.27 343
271 What is FMLA? 2012.01.15 344
270 Litigation Cases - Misclassification (스타벅스의 OT관련 법적소송건- 3) 2011.11.28 359
269 FMLA - Military Family Leave Entitlements 2012.01.15 362
268 Pay Notices Required to be Provided New Employees as of 1/1/2012 2011.12.18 364
267 Federal Jury Awards $105K in EEOC Sexual Harassment Case Against Racine IHOP (Restaurant) 2012.01.03 365
266 Wage Order No. 4 - CA 2012.02.22 367
265 What is DUA (Disaster Unemployment Assistance)? 2011.12.13 368
264 Examples of Conduct that May be Unlawful 2011.12.28 368
263 Wage Order No. 12 - CA 2012.02.22 368
262 FMLA - Benefits and Protections 2012.01.15 370
261 NY State - New Release - effective 1/1/2012 2012.01.15 371
260 Wage Order No. 11 - CA 2012.02.22 372
259 What do I need to file a claim? 2011.12.13 373
258 Misclassification-15 Billion in 2001 - IRS now coming to collect - 안전하신가요? 2012.01.05 375
257 What is the Purpose of I-9 Form? 2011.12.10 379
256 What is Protected Class? 2011.12.27 384
255 You DO NOT complete a Form I-9 for persons who are: 2011.12.10 385
254 FMLA - Employee Responsibilities 2012.01.15 385
253 Who is Eligible for DUA? 2011.12.13 386
252 What Is the Filing Fee? 2011.12.10 391
251 Sexual Harassment- Complaint Procedures 2011.12.31 392
250 I-9 Form: The Rules of Use 2011.12.10 398
249 Misclassification의 경우 Penalty는 얼마나 될까? 2011.11.28 404
248 Examples of a hostile work environment 2011.12.28 406
247 Best Practices for Limiting Employer Liability (가장중요한 대책들입니다.) 2012.01.02 408
246 Wage Order No. 13 - CA 2012.02.22 408
245 Litigation Cases (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 잘못 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건- 2) 2011.11.28 409
244 FMLA - Eligibility Requirements 2012.01.15 411
243 Litigation Cases - Misclassification (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건) 2011.11.28 412
242 What is I-9? 2011.12.10 417
241 미국내 회사들의 평균 Holiday는 얼마나 주고 있는것일까? 2011.11.30 419
240 SB 459: Penalties for employers who misclassify employees as independent contractors. 2011.12.18 421
239 HR - 아무리해도 강조해도 지나치지 않는것!! 2012.01.08 422
238 What is Flexible Spending Account (FSA)? 2011.12.22 424
237 이런 Benefit이 있다면? 2011.11.30 426
236 What is Fiduciary Liability Insurance? 2012.01.08 427
235 Wage Order No. 15 - CA 2012.02.22 432
234 SDI - 몸이 아파서 직장을 못나가게 되었을때, 무슨 혜택이 있을까? 2011.11.21 440
233 Wage Order No. 14 - CA 2012.02.22 440
232 401K - Fidelity Bonds 2012.01.08 452