Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[puppydotcom]

In a letter filed today, defendants confirmed that their current law firm would be withdrawing based on a conflict of interest and stated that, while they hoped to have a replacement firm in place by 7/9, to shorten the original schedule would present a problem and asked the court to maintain it.

since Mosky has to use his some of ( or all ) own money .. I can see a big issue now ...
I wonder what the insurance companies are doing

.. good read on D&O
coverage

http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Jan/1/241472.html

Whether a D&O insurer must, or should, advance defense costs – that is, pay them as they are incurred – is a common question. Many of the issues affecting coverage cannot be resolved until the claim has been resolved. Specifically, certain exclusions only apply after a finding of fact has been made. For example, as discussed below, policies generally exclude coverage for losses arising out of fraud. The exclusion only applies, however, where there is a final judgment finding fraud. Thus, where fraud is alleged, coverage is uncertain until the completion of the claim. In such situations, insurers may have an interest in not advancing defense costs until coverage is certain. However, insurers have an interest in seeing their insureds vigorously defend claims against them. A vigorous defense can be a costly endeavor that may be well beyond the means of an insured. Thus, many policies provide that insurers advance defense costs under the condition that, should the facts ultimately demonstrate a lack of coverage, the insured will reimburse the advanced monies.


C. Exclusions

1. Dishonesty Exclusion

Dishonesty exclusions bar coverage for claims made in connection with an insured’s dishonesty, fraud, or willful violation of laws or statutes. The dishonesty exclusion also may be coupled with a personal profit exclusion, barring coverage in connection with an insured’s illicit gain. These exclusions typically are followed by a severability clause – that is, a caveat providing that the acts or knowledge of one insured will not be imputed to any other insured for the purposes of applying the exclusion. In other words, the exclusion only bars coverage for the insured(s) whose acts or knowledge are the basis of the claim at issue.

In the securities context, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits a defendant to request a special verdict from the jury, identifying its judgment of each defendant’s state of mind. PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. 77z-1(d). Although a special verdict would assist in the proper application of the dishonesty exclusion, most securities lawsuits do not reach a verdict at all – they are either settled or decided on motions.

As mentioned above, many dishonesty exclusions include an adjudication clause, which provides that the exclusion only applies if the fraud or dishonesty is established by a judgment or other final adjudication. In connection with this clause, the question arises whether the judgment or other final adjudication must be in the underlying litigation. For the most part, the case law on this subject supports the position that most adjudication clauses, as they currently are written, require a final adjudication in the underlying litigation, rather than in a parallel coverage action or other lawsuit. Courts have held either that (1) the adjudication clause is ambiguous, so must be interpreted in favor of coverage, see e.g., Atlantic Permanent Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. American Cas. Co., 839 F.2d 212, 216-17 (4th Cir. 1988) (finding the phrase “a judgment or other final adjudication thereof” to be ambiguous, and therefore upholding the district court’s decision against the insurer that the provision requires a finding of deliberate dishonesty “in the underlying action itself, rather than a subsequent coverage suit”), or (2) the clause explicitly requires a finding of fraud or dishonesty in the underlying litigation. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Continental Illinois Corp., 666 F. Supp. 1180, 1197 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (finding that where an adjudication clause requires “a judgment or other final adjudication thereof,” that “[t]he word ‘thereof’ refers to the suit against the directors and officers and unless there is a judgment adverse to them in the underlying suit, then the exclusion does not apply”). This issue has a significant impact on the effect of settlements. Essentially, if an underlying lawsuit is settled without a specific admission of liability, a dishonesty exclusion is unlikely to apply.