McGuireWoods’ Ponzi Litigation team launched its Ponzi Perspectives blog in early 2021. Throughout the past four years, we’ve tracked and posted case alerts on Ponzi-related complaints filed in federal and state courts throughout the country, analyzed key decisions that have the potential to influence controlling law, and posted practical considerations for financial institutions to consider
Financial
America’s Aging Dams and Other Infrastructure is an Urgent Insurance Coverage Issue
Natural disasters are becoming more frequent, more severe, and more destructive. No part of the United States is entirely immune from some combination of tornadoes, fires, droughts, earthquakes, freeze events, and hurricanes. Indeed, 2024’s “extraordinary” hurricane season saw Hurricanes Helene and Milton devastate swaths of the Southeastern United States from Florida to North Carolina.[1]…
The SEC’s Cybersecurity Incident, Governance, and Management Reporting Requirements: What you Need to Know to Avoid Cyber and D&O Coverage Gaps
The SEC public company cyber disclosure rule raises issues that companies should consider in reviewing existing insurance coverage and in assessing overall risk.
The SEC recently adopted a new cybersecurity disclosure related rule (the “SEC Cyber Disclosure Rule”)[1] in response to increasing risks associated with cyber incidents and a perceived need for investors to…
Xerox Obtains Important Pro-Policyholder Decision in New York’s First Department, Adopting Narrow Construction of “Arising From” Exclusions and Confirming That Insurers Who Show Indifference to Policyholders’ Rights May Be Liable for Bad Faith in New York
In March last year, New York’s Appellate Division – First Department issued Xerox an important pro-policyholder decision in its D&O insurance recovery action against Travelers, arising from Xerox’s failed 2018 merger with Fujifilm. In a thoughtful order, the court issued three key pro-policyholder rulings that: (1) reinforce the rule that the words “arising from” when…
North Carolina Supreme Court Unlocks the Door to COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage, Holding that Pandemic-Era Restrictions on Use of Property Constitute “Direct Physical Loss” to Property
Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in North State Deli, LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, siding with a group of North Carolina restaurants that sought business interruption insurance for losses they sustained because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the court held that those restaurants sustained “direct physical loss” to…
Recent Decision from Eastern District of New York Confirms D&O Coverage for False Claims Act Defense Costs
A recent decision by a federal court in the Eastern District of New York illustrates how directors and officers (“D&O”) policies can provide valuable insurance coverage for defense costs and potential liabilities arising from False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation. In Northern Metropolitan Foundation for Healthcare, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Company, Case No. 20-CV-2224 (EK) (JAM)…
Notable Litigation – October 2024
Notable litigation filed in October 2024 includes: (1) Jolley v. WCM Global Wealth, LLC, et al., No. 2024CP2306268 (S.C. Com. Pl.); (2) Vazquez, et al., v. Inventis Ventures Holding, Inc., et al., No. 2024-01436108 (Cal. Super. Ct.); and (3) Jaramillo v. AM Transport Group LLC, et al., No. 2024-020463-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.).
Jolley v. WCM…
Northern District of New York Dismisses Claim—With Prejudice—of a Bank Aiding-and-Abetting Ponzi Scheme
O’Dell v. Berkshire Bank, 5:24-cv-00652 (N.D.N.Y.)
On October 31, 2024, the Northern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against Berkshire Bank (“Berkshire”) with prejudice.[1]
I. Facts
O’Dell involved the standard story of a Ponzi class action against a bank, in which investors lost money through a Ponzi scheme—perpetrated by a non-party…
Notable Litigation – September 2024
Notable litigation filed during September 2024 includes: (1) Williamson, et al. v. Linarducci, et al., No. 24-cv-01526 (S.D. Ind.); (2) Perrotta v. First Edge, LLC, et al., No. 24-cv-01638 (M.D. Fla.); (3) Next Gen. Inv. Grp., LLC, et al. v. Pure Health Enters., Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-06764 (N.D. Cal.); (4) Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Staryk, et al.,…
California Enacts New Bill to Strengthen Customer Protection on Automatic Renewals
On September 24, 2024, California enacted Assembly Bill 2863 (the “Bill”) to take effect on July 1, 2025.[1] The Bill updates California’s regulations governing automatic renewals and continuous services. An automatic renewal or continuous service (“auto renewal contract”) is defined as a contract that renews automatically at the end of a definite term or…