One of the questions that has accompanied the Securities and Exchange Commission’s changing approach to digital asset regulation is whether a decline in enforcement activity would lead to an increase private plaintiff litigation against cryptocurrency and crypto-adjacent companies.  A July 7, 2026, report by NERA Economic Consulting (NERA) suggests the answer may be more nuanced. While, according to NERA’s analysis, private securities litigation has become a larger share of crypto-related litigation, it has not fully replaced the reduction in SEC enforcement actions.  The changing nature of crypto-related claims could have a significant impact on D&O underwriters operating in the sector. The NERA report provides a useful framework for evaluating the D&O implications of these developments.

A link to the NERA report published by Simona Mola, Ph.D. can be found here.

Continue Reading Crypto D&O Risk Is Evolving

As readers know, in May, the SEC proposed a rule that would provide companies currently subject to the agency’s quarterly reporting requirements with the option to instead file interim reports semiannually. Following the agency’s announcement of the proposed rule, the proposal has been subject to public comment. The comment period is now closed, although apparently some late filed comments are still being made public. What does the commentary show?  The filed comments show that while public reaction to the proposal has varied, the filed comments were almost exclusively negative.

Continue Reading Commentators Respond to SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal
John McCarrick

Those who follow Directors’ and Officers’ indemnification and advancement issues know that there are a host of recurring questions surrounding executives’ advancement rights, including whether there are duration or amount limits on a company’s advancement obligations. In the following guest post, John McCarrick, a partner at the Robinson & Cole law firm in New York, takes a look at these issues in the context of recent high-profile dispute involving executives at JPMorgan. Our thanks to John for allowing us to publish his article guest post on this site. Here is John’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: When D&O Advancement Becomes a Blank Check

Continuation Vehicles (CVs) have grown in popularity with private equity (PE) firms as traditional exit routes, such as IPOs and strategic sales, have become unfavorable due to geopolitical turmoil, macroeconomic and AI- driven disruption.  However, the same features that make CVs attractive for PE sponsors may also create D&O and E&O exposure, as sponsors typically control key aspects of the transaction, including valuation, process design, and investor disclosures.

Continue Reading Continuation Vehicles and Private Equity Management Liability Risk

Since the dawn of time, one of the biggest D&O insurance coverage issues has been allocation – that is, the division of loss between covered and noncovered claims or between covered and noncovered parties. After a series of developments in the mid-90s, including the standardization of policy allocation language, litigated allocation disputes became less frequent (though to be sure, allocation is still very much an issue in many D&O insurance claims.) However, in recent years, there has been a series of Delaware court decisions revisiting both allocation issues and what has become the standard D&O insurance allocation provision.

In the latest example of the reemergence of litigated allocation disputes, a Delaware court has held that the “Larger Settlement Rule” should be used to resolve an allocation dispute, notwithstanding the presence in the applicable allocation provision of relatively standard “relative exposures” language. With this latest decision, and in light of the other recent Delaware allocation decisions, some differentiating principles can be discerned, as discussed below.

A copy of the Delaware Superior Court’s June 18, 2026, decision in the Hemisphere Media Group case can be found here. The July 10, 2026, LinkedIn post of Geoffrey Fehling of the Hunton Andrew Kurth law firm discussing the court’s allocation decision in the Hemisphere case can be found here.

Continue Reading Del. Court: “Larger Settlement Rule” Applies to Insurance Allocation Dispute

A securities class action filed against ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers on June 25, 2026, highlights what may be the next phase of AI-related securities litigation. Unlike many earlier AI-related lawsuits, which alleged that companies overstated their AI capabilities, the Zoom complaint alleges that the company accurately described its AI initiatives but failed to disclose that AI was simultaneously disrupting its legacy business model.

If this theory gains traction, it could represent another evolution in AI-related securities litigation: from alleged AI washing to alleged underdisclosure of AI-related business risks.

Continue Reading AI-Related Securities Litigation Continues to Evolve

The third episode of The D&O Diary Podcast Series is now live. Building on our June 30, 2026, post discussing first-half federal court securities class action lawsuits, this episode explores the factors and  trends driving the number of current suit filings.

In this podcast, we discuss the overall increase in the total number of federal court securities suits during the first six months of 2026; the continued emergence of AI-related securities litigation; and the significant role that stock manipulation and promotion-related claims in the number of securities suits that have been filed so far this year. We also examine what these developments may mean for public companies, directors and officers, and D&O insurers in the months ahead.

Continue Reading The D&O Diary Podcast Series – Episode 3: Securities Class Action Suit Filing Trends
Thomas Boley

In the following guest post, Thomas Boley, an associate at the Wiley Rein LLP law firm, takes a closer look at the Up-C corporate structure, and considers the claims that can arise due to the issues the corporate structure can present, as well as the insurance coverage issues that these claims may involve. Our thanks to Thomas for allowing us to publish his article as a guest post on this site. Here is Thomas’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: D&O Risks in Up‑C Dilution Claims

For more than two decades, The D&O Diary has chronicled successive waves of securities litigation involving foreign companies with shares listed on U.S. exchanges. The Chinese reverse merger cases of the early 2010s centered on alleged accounting fraud. More recently, a new cluster of lawsuits has emerged involving low-float stocks, artificial intelligence announcements, SPACs, and alleged market manipulation. 

A lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Texas on June 23, 2026, brings many of these themes together and may signal an emerging variant of cross-border securities fraud. The complaint combines four themes that have increasingly appeared in D&O litigation: sanctions, cryptocurrency, low-float trading, and cross-border market manipulation.

Continue Reading New Lawsuit Suggests Evolution in Cross-Border Securities Fraud

The private credit industry’s litigation wave continues to evolve. A newly filed lawsuit against Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors LLC targets a core feature of modern private credit structures: whether an investment adviser can be held liable for collecting advisory fees on payment-in-kind (“PIK”) income that may never be realized in cash.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Continue Reading Private Credit Excessive Fee Lawsuit Over Payment-In-Kind