Directors and Officers Left Defenseless

New Zealand Justice

New Zealand Justice

One of the main reasons why directors buy Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance cover is to pay for expensive defense costs should they find themselves in the dock. But a surprise decision by a New Zealand court means directors will have to fund their own legal fees until such time as all claimants’ claims have been settled.

In September, a High Court ruling in Auckland prevented directors from using their D&O policy to fund the defense of criminal actions brought against them by the New Zealand Financial Markets Authority. The decision favors the claimants who naturally want to preserve the insurance limit to fund the final judgment or settlement.

With similar claimant-friendly laws in place in other countries, the case should lead directors around the world to wonder whether their aggregate D&O policy limit is enough to cover their legal costs.

Burning Bridges

Willis Australia Bulletin: Bridgecorp Impact on D&O Insurance

Read more in Willis Bulletin, Australia: Bridgecorp's Impact on D&O Insurance (PDF)

The ongoing New Zealand case concerns claims against certain directors of Bridgecorp Group — an amalgam of finance companies that borrowed money from the investing public to fund property development.

Bridgecorp collapsed in 2007 owing investors nearly NZD 500 million. The defendant directors had the benefit of a D&O policy with a limit of NZD 20 million. The directors estimated that they would require approximately NZD 3 million of this limit by way of defense costs through to the end of trial. They also faced the prospect of future civil proceedings for many millions of NZ$.

Insurer Push Back

As is often the case with hefty D&O claims, the insurers involved had yet to confirm that the claim was covered. Quite apart from any coverage issues which may have existed, the issue with which the New Zealand High Court had to grapple was thrown up by Section 9 of the New Zealand Law Reform Act 1936. This stipulates that insurance funds under a liability policy must be made available to creditors if the court rules in their favor. The issue was whether this provision in effect prevented the directors from accessing the policy until after the final judgment.

As the judge in the Bridgecorp case put it when he delivered the verdict that the directors would not be allowed to use their D&O policies to pay their defense costs:

“Although this result may be harsh for the directors, it is clearly in accordance with the object and purpose of Section 9.  If the directors are able to obtain access to funds under the policy to meet their defense costs, the pool of funds available to meet civil claims will be significantly depleted…”

Claimant-Friendly Jurisdictions

Other countries have similar legislation aimed at protecting claimants in this type of situation:

Australia New South Wales has a similar law to the Reform Act to protect plaintiffs in civil proceedings from being unable to gain compensation awarded from defendants who were insolvent. Read more in our Australian team’s recent client bulletin.
Israel Requirement for directors to purchase D&O insurance limits with defense costs in addition
Italy Requires an additional 25% of the limit to be purchased and ring-fenced for defense costs

Companies with significant undertakings or operations in jurisdictions anywhere in the world which have claimant friendly legislation of this kind would do well to consider whether they need to purchase separate and or additional defense costs protection for their directors. This is not the only type of claimant friendly insurance based legislation and in my next blog I will highlight another.

About Francis Kean

Francis is an Executive Director in Willis Towers Watson's FINEX Global, where he specializes in insurance for Dir…
Categories: Australasia, Directors & Officers | Tags: , ,

3 Responses to Directors and Officers Left Defenseless

  1. Pingback: BRIDGECORP CASE JUDGMENT | FINEX Global News

  2. jim skiles says:

    Would Side A coverage be helpful to the directors in the Bridgefield Crop example?

    • Francis Kean says:

      Good question Jim. The answer is that I doubt it would make much difference since the vice at which the NZ legislation is aimed is the erosion of loss limits by defense costs. The question as to whether the company is entitled to reimbursement in respect of indemnified costs or losses should not matter. This is different from the question as to whether the D&O policy forms part of the bankrupt estate of an insolvent company where Side A status can be of considerable importance

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *