{"id":5462,"date":"2013-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-07-06T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.blawgcloud.com\/2013\/07\/new_york_court_of_appeals_send"},"modified":"2022-03-09T16:16:20","modified_gmt":"2022-03-09T22:16:20","slug":"new-york-court-of-appeals-send","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/","title":{"rendered":"Securities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

New York\u2019s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission order mandating that Bear Stearns (BSC) pay $160M in disgorgement failed to establish in a conclusive manner that payment could not be insured. The securities lawsuit is J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., et al. v. Vigilant Insurance Company, et al.<\/em><\/p>\n

Claiming that Bear Stearns engaged in market timing mutual fund trades and illegal late trading and for certain clients over a four-year period, the SEC wanted $720M in sanctions from the firm. The financial firm, however, argued that the activities only caused it to make $16.9M in revenues. A settlement was reached ordering Bear Stearns to pay $160M in disgorgement and $90M in penalties, with the firm not having to deny or admit to the Commission\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n

A declaratory action followed with a plaintiff in the New York Supreme Court seeking to have D & O insurers pay for $150M of the $160M disgorgement. Citing New York law, the insurers argued that the case should be dismissed, noting that under state law disgorgement is not insurable. A lower court turned down these contentions, denying the motion.<\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

New York\u2019s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission order mandating that Bear Stearns (BSC) pay $160M in disgorgement failed to establish in a conclusive manner that payment could not be insured. The securities lawsuit is J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., et […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3807,3752,3760,3795,3761],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bear-stearns","category-financial-firms","category-sec-enforcement","category-sec-settlements","category-securities-and-exchange-commis"],"yoast_head":"\nSecurities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 6, 2013<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"New York\u2019s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange — July 6, 2013\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Securities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 6, 2013\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"New York\u2019s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange — July 6, 2013\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Securities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 6, 2013","description":"New York\u2019s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange — July 6, 2013","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Securities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 6, 2013","twitter_description":"New York\u2019s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange — July 6, 2013","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/","name":"Securities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 6, 2013","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-07-06T05:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:16:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"New York\u2019s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange — July 6, 2013","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/new-york-court-of-appeals-send\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Securities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-1q6","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5462","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5462"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5462\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22804,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5462\/revisions\/22804"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}