J.P. Morgan Securities v. Vigilant Insurance Co.
New York Court of Appeals
992 N.E.2d 1076 (2013)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Bear Stearns & Company, Inc. (Bear Stearns) (plaintiff) with numerous securities-law violations. Bear Stearns admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to settle the case by paying a $90 million civil penalty and a $160 million so-called disgorgement. The settlement order recited the SEC’s finding that Bear Stearns had willfully engaged in deceptive brokerage practices. Although the settlement order did not explain the basis for the disgorgement payment, Bear Stearns contended that only $20 million of that payment represented Bear Stearns’s own profits and that the rest represented profits that third-party customers reaped from Bear Stearns’s brokerage practices. Vigilant Insurance Company and Bear Stearns’s other professional-liability insurers (defendants) refused to cover any portion of Bear Stearns’s settlement payments. Bear Stearns and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (J.P. Morgan) (plaintiff), with whom Bear Sterns merged in 2008, sued for indemnification. The trial court denied the insurers’ motion to dismiss the case but was reversed on appeal by an intermediate court. Bear Stearns and J.P. Morgan appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Graffeo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.