We only handle non-construction related surety bonds but it's not every day bonding is mentioned as the prime motive for major M&A activity so I'm posting this story from the Boston Business Journal that suggest Berry construction sold to Suffolk because of bonding capacity issues.
Behind the deal: William A. Berry sold to Suffolk due to financial concerns - Boston Business Journal:
Shared via AddThis
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Upholds $2million Verdict Against Wal-Mart
The Mass. SJC upheld a $2million verdict in a pay discrimination case brought by a female pharmacist against Wal-Mart Stores.
Story from WSJ.com here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455311605751836.html
Insurance lesson here is be sure your Employment Practices Liability policy covers punitive damages! This verdict was $1million of compensatory damages and $1million in puntive damages.
Story from WSJ.com here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455311605751836.html
Insurance lesson here is be sure your Employment Practices Liability policy covers punitive damages! This verdict was $1million of compensatory damages and $1million in puntive damages.
Monday, October 5, 2009
DOL Posts Field Guidance on ERISA Bonds
The Department of Labor has published a long awaited "Field Assistance Bulletin" on ERISA's fidelity bonding requirements. The format is Q&A so it's an easy read (as these types of documents go!) so consult this when you are confronted with the age old question "how much ERISA fidelity coverage do I need?" and you may feel a bit more confident about this decision!
Link to DOL website: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/fab2008-4.pdf
Link to DOL website: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/fab2008-4.pdf
9th Circuit Decision Emphasizes The Importance of Adequate ERISA Fiduciary Insurance
Just catching up on my summer reading here and getting some new posts on the blog.
Over the summer the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a scathing rebuke to the fiduciaries of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, most of whom also served as directors and officers of the company 100% owned by the ESOP. In summary the fiduciaries had an agreement with the company that it would advance defense costs to any claim made against them for breach of fiduciary duty to the ESOP. In 2004 the company bought out a former owner's large block of stock options and paid him significant deferred compensation. Several current and former ESOP participants sued alleging the stock options and deferred compensation arrangements violated ERISA's standards of prudent conduct. The Department of Labor took an interest in the case early on and now the 9th Circuit has upheld a district court injunction against the company barring it from advancing any defense costs. Among other things the decision seems to underscore the view held by some that if an ESOP owns 100% of a company the distinction between the legal roles and exposures of the fiduciaries of the ESOP and the directors and officers of the company are practically indistinguishable.
Decision is posted here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/27/08-17369.pdf
Over the summer the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a scathing rebuke to the fiduciaries of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, most of whom also served as directors and officers of the company 100% owned by the ESOP. In summary the fiduciaries had an agreement with the company that it would advance defense costs to any claim made against them for breach of fiduciary duty to the ESOP. In 2004 the company bought out a former owner's large block of stock options and paid him significant deferred compensation. Several current and former ESOP participants sued alleging the stock options and deferred compensation arrangements violated ERISA's standards of prudent conduct. The Department of Labor took an interest in the case early on and now the 9th Circuit has upheld a district court injunction against the company barring it from advancing any defense costs. Among other things the decision seems to underscore the view held by some that if an ESOP owns 100% of a company the distinction between the legal roles and exposures of the fiduciaries of the ESOP and the directors and officers of the company are practically indistinguishable.
Decision is posted here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/27/08-17369.pdf
Blue Cross physicians warned of data breach - The Boston Globe
The PLUS New England Chapter held a seminar on privacy liability on Thursday 10-1-09:
https://plusweb.org/index.cfm/p/Events.EventDetails/eventID/NE1009
Two days later the Boston Globe reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield had a laptop stolen with personal information on thousands of physicians:
Blue Cross physicians warned of data breach - The Boston Globe
I would appear the chapter chose a timely topic!
https://plusweb.org/index.cfm/p/Events.EventDetails/eventID/NE1009
Two days later the Boston Globe reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield had a laptop stolen with personal information on thousands of physicians:
Blue Cross physicians warned of data breach - The Boston Globe
I would appear the chapter chose a timely topic!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Goodbye Salomon Brothers
Link to an interesting story in today's Wall Street Journal about the "final, final" end of Salomon Brothers, the firm widely credited with creating the mortgage backed securities market in the 1980s.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125417931158647695.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125417931158647695.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
