Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

The Classic Case

When it comes to D&O disgorgement situations, insurers rely heavily on Level 3 Communications Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., but policyholders argue that the decision is flawed.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

In the case, former shareholders of MFS Telecom had sold the company to the defendant, Level 3 Communications. But MFS shareholders later sued Level 3, claiming that it had wrongfully acquired their shares through fraudulent representations and omissions. Had they known the truth, the shareholders argued, they could have commanded a higher price for their shares.

Level 3 settled the lawsuit for $12 million, seeking coverage for the settlement payment under a D&O policy issued by Federal Insurance Co. Federal denied coverage, and Level 3 then sued.

Read the exciting ruling on the case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

July 1, 2007

Copyright 2007© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.