Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
So What Does Your Fidelity Policy Actually Cover?
Businesses purchase fidelity insurance to cover their losses from crime such as employee theft and forgery. This need is usually most pronounced for banks and other financial service firms, where employees have access to enormous amounts of money. For these policyholders, misplaced trust in a resourceful employee can result in millions of dollars disappearing from the policyholder or its clients with only a few keystrokes. When policyholders turn to their fidelity insurance for relief, these businesses then learn that they may have misplaced their trust in their insurance companies, too. All too often, policyholders have to fight for the coverage they reasonably expected.
In perhaps the most widely repeated example, an insurance company will offer a business a fidelity policy for 'direct loss' of money due to theft or forgery. When an employee of the business steals a client's money or goods, or enriches herself through a forged document, and the business pays for its client's loss, most reasonable policyholders would think that the fidelity policy would provide relief. There was a dishonest act by an employee that directly resulted in the need to repay a client. Indeed, many businesses view this situation as the prototypical example of what they intended to insure against when purchasing a fidelity policy. Business reality is that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, employers are almost always strictly liable for losses caused by their employees' and agents' actions. When an employee steals from a client, the employer's responsibility to pay the loss follows like night follows day. However, insurance companies usually take the surprising position that the policyholder's loss was not 'direct,' and therefore is not covered at all.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.