today:
93
yesterday:
242
Total:
1,004,251

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
181 FLSA Status - 어떻게 Exempt인지 Non Exempt인지 구분하나요? 단계별 test를 해보세요. 2013.11.25 1080
180 Money: It’s Not All Employees Want 2012.08.09 1071
179 미국내 회사들의 평균 Holiday는 얼마나 주고 있는것일까? 2011.11.30 1053
178 CA State - New Hire Requirement - Effective as of 1/1/2012 2012.01.15 1052
177 $7 Billion Lost in payroll tax revenue - President Obama's 2010 Budget estimated for independent contractor misclassification 2012.03.10 1046
176 Litigation Cases - Misclassification (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건) 2011.11.28 1037
175 Age Discrimination 2012.08.04 1036
174 Multi-Million Dollar Overtime Laws Class Action Has July Court Date 2012.07.07 1029
173 Unpaid Lunch Break & Paid Smoke Breaks? 2011.11.30 998
172 Misclassification-15 Billion in 2001 - IRS now coming to collect - 안전하신가요? 2012.01.05 974
171 Employee vs Independent Contractor - EDD Guideline 2012.03.10 964
170 FedEx’s Legal Problems Over Misclassified Workers Continues - $27 million settlement 2012.03.10 958
169 Sexual Harassment- Complaint Procedures 2011.12.31 949
168 FLSA Status-직원 급여를 Hourly로 혹은 Salary로 주는것은 회사 재량일까? 2011.11.28 931
167 Employment Law Basics 2016.01.14 927
166 Rate Your Vacation - 우리회사의 Vacation은 좋은 편인가? Benchmarking해보셔요! 2011.11.30 919
165 Newly Hired or Promoted Managers - sexual harassment 주시고 계신가요? 2013.11.25 913
164 Sexual Harassment- Key Elements of Investigation Procedures 2011.12.31 896
163 Misclassification의 경우 Penalty는 얼마나 될까? 2011.11.28 889
162 Examples of a hostile work environment 2011.12.28 887
161 Interview Question-Candidates may be asked - 인터뷰시 물어봐도 되는 질문들 2011.12.06 861
160 Employee Benefits in US provided by DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011.11.30 858
159 Employee vs Independent Contractor - IRS Guideline 2012.03.10 845
158 4 Overtime Traps to Avoid 2012.07.07 832
157 Wrongful Termination Lawsuits on the Rise 2012.07.07 824
156 Interview Question-Candidates should not be asked - 인터뷰시 하면 안되는 질문들!! 2011.12.06 779
155 Travel Time Policy - good example 2 - may be good for your company too. 2012.01.22 777
154 Litigation Cases (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 잘못 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건- 2) 2011.11.28 771
153 Common Interviewing Mistakes -인터뷰할 때 가장 범하기 쉬운 실수 5가지!! 2011.12.06 764
152 California Overtime Violations FAQ - I work part time and am paid a monthly salary. Does that exclude me from overtime? 2012.07.07 762
151 Litigation Cases - Misclassification (스타벅스의 OT관련 법적소송건- 3) 2011.11.28 752
150 What is Protected Class? 2011.12.27 751
149 Litigation Cases - Misclassification (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건) 2011.11.28 749
148 EEOC’s Definition of Sexual Harassment 2011.12.27 734
147 이런 Benefit이 있다면? 2011.11.30 733
146 Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) 2012.01.08 732
145 Rate Your Vacation - 우리회사의 Vacation은 좋은 편인가? Benchmarking해보셔요! 2011.11.30 732
144 California Overtime Violations FAQ - what does exemption or being exempt mean? 2012.07.07 732
143 Sexual Harassment - What is the big deal? 2011.12.26 727
142 미국내 회사들의 평균 Holiday는 얼마나 주고 있는것일까? 2011.11.30 710
141 California Overtime Violations FAQ - Can I file an overtime complaint against my current employer? 2012.07.07 708
140 California Overtime Violations FAQ - signed up a statement as exempt and supervisor told no overtime. Is that right? 2012.07.07 706
139 California Overtime Violations FAQ - What can I do if my employer doens't pay me my overtime wages? 2012.07.07 705
138 Pay Notices Required to be Provided New Employees as of 1/1/2012 2011.12.18 704
137 Unpaid Lunch Break & Paid Smoke Breaks? 2011.11.30 702
136 이런 Benefit이 있다면? 2011.11.30 696
135 California Overtime Violations FAQ - Does travel time count as overtime? 2012.07.07 678
134 Types of Sexual Harassment - Quid Pro Quo/ Hostile Work environment 2011.12.27 677
133 Travel Time Policy - Good point about the PAY RATE during transiting time 2012.01.22 676
132 CA State - New Hire Requirement - Effective as of 1/1/2012 2012.01.15 674