Director and officer liability

8/11/2019 Director and officer liability

1/45

DIRECTORS & OFFICERS LIABILITYPOLICY

A Presentation by:

JK Risk Managers and Insurance Brokers Ltd(A JK Group Company)


2/45

The JK Group

JKOrganization

JK Tyres

JK Paper

J.K.Seeds

JK LaxmiCement

JK Sugar

JKFenner

JK Dairy& Foods

JKRMIBL

A trusted Business House for over 124 Years


3/45

JKRMIBL

Experts at Purerisk management

Innovativesolutions

Claim Analysis Checklist preparation

on strong background

Exhaustive

cover set forlosses

Claimexpediting

Customized

offering Strong CRM

LifeInsurance

GeneralInsurance

RiskManagement

ClaimManagement


4/45

9 Branches inIndia:

New DelhiMumbaiKolkataBengaluruAhmadabadJaipurSurat

NoidaGurgaon

Demographic Presence

Serving heterogeneity with its homogenous product portfolio


5/45

Repeated business orders ensures greater business volumes

Customer retention and customer expectation managementmakes JKRMIBL an emerging player in the market

815

90

258

234

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

AmountinRs.

Mn

Year

External Premiun Serviced Yearly

Figures in Rs. Mn


6/45

Service Delivery

To Insurers

Providing relevant and concise data in form of Broking slips

Act as marketing channel without bias

Coordination with TPAs

Claim expedition

To Clients

Web based applications Value added services

Knowledge management


7/45

Software ITeS Infrastructure

ManufacturingGovt./PSU/

NGO/Trusts

Specialization

Expertise covering all sectors


8/45

Introduction to D&0 liability

Although a company has a separate legal entity it is obviously incapable ofacting on its own and can only operate through its Directors and Officers. Inaddition to the statutory duties a Director & Officer must act in good faith in hisdealings with and on behalf of the company and exercise the powers and fulfillthe duties of his office honestly. Thus the responsibilities of a Director becomeincreasingly onerous and complex.

It is important for companysexecutives to be sensitized to the fact that virtuallyeverything that they do creates the potential for second guessing and perhapsclaims by persons adversely affected by their actions and decisions.

Executive Liability is a perennial threat for corporations, large and small.

A Company Director or Officer is thus exposed by law to a formidable array ofliabilities and penalties both under the Companies act as well various other lawsaimed to protect the interests of the Company as well its employees.

450 laws out of the innumerable Indian Laws, directly hold a Director or Officerin charge liable under various sections.


9/45

ContThe Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has made several

recommendations regarding the minimum number of independent directors on theBoards of listed companies, and the role that they should play. According to the codenow mandated through listing agreements-at least a third of the board must consistof independent directors if the Chairman is a non-executive director, and halfotherwise.

SEBI board on 14th May 2001 paved the way for the creation of a code of conduct to

prevent insiders trading as also a code for corporate disclosure practices for listedcompanies. Thus for the first time placing responsibility on India Inc to tackle themenace of insider trading.

Even the Report on Investor Protection, calls for a clear shift in SEBIs role as aregulator. They have proposed SEBI to be an on-and-off-the-field regulator on thelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the US, which incidentally

as a condition requires all the companies listing on the US Stock Exchanges tomaintain a D&O Liability Insurance.

Corporate Governance often requires the executives to delicately balance thecompeting interest of various company constituents like Shareholders, employees,customers, lenders, regulators etc.


10/45

Cont

A Director or Officer cannot be defended by the Company when legal activities areinitiated against him for any reason although he may have discharged his duties honestly

or may have been ultimately acquitted by the Court from the charges. As such, it becomesvery difficult for a Director to ensure that any negligent act by his subordinates, to whomthe ultimate responsibility for implementation of the decision is entrusted, perform theirduties honestly and in good faith.

The recent amendment to Clause 49 of the listing Agreement by SEBI ( on lines of the

Sarbanes Oxley Act of USA) places the Directors and Officers under more strenuous andstringent scanner .

Thus we have seen that the responsibilities of a Director / Officer become increasinglyonerous and complex.

It is in light of this enhanced exposure faced by the companies and its Directors, that allcompanies should have a contingency plan in place in case the nightmare scenario occurs.This begs the questions What can a Company/ Director/ Officer do?

The answer is purchasing a Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy (D&O).


11/45

1933/34 Securities Acts D&O Liability for misrepresentations, omissions in public

offerings, statements

1995 PSLRA

Intended to prevent abuses of securities class action lawsuits. Heightened Pleading Standard

2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Blackout trading barred

CEO and CFO certifications Faster insider trading disclosure

Increased Audit Committee duties and SEC review

More criminal penalties and fines

Historical Legislation Impacting D&O Suits in USA


12/45

Liabilities - How It Arises

Various Laws & Acts Special focus on Companies (Amendment ) Act

2000, Environment Laws and Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Tax

Laws

Duty of skill and Care

Fiduciary Duty Statutory Duty

Increasing Recourse to global resources of financing and consequent

compliance requirements.

Stricter implementation of the capital market regulations by SEBI.

Consumer movements, class action and juridical activism.

Duty to Shareholders


13/45

The Main Exposures

Publicly Quoted Companies

Subsidiaries with Outside Shareholders

Joint Ventures

Raising Additional Capital

Mergers & Acquisitions

Major Restructuring

International Markets

Private & Public Offerings

Independent Directors on BoardOpening branches/subsidiaries overseas, particularly in theUSA


14/45

Who Can Bring an Action?

Government or Regulatory Bodies

Shareholders

EmployeesDirectors

The Official Receiver / Liquidator

Customers

Competitors

The PublicThe Company

Creditors

The Potential Plaintiffs are:-


15/45

Can the Company Protect its Directors?

Whilst a company may indemnify its Directors for actions brought

against them, the scope of protection is limited and may well be

removed if:-

i) the company becomes insolventii) the company has insufficient funds

iii) the company is the claimant

iv) the protection is withdrawn

v) they are no longer Directors of the company.

Most importantly indemnification by the Company is only permissible

when a claim is successfully defended.


16/45

Who is protected by the policy?

A Policy is normally arranged in the name of the Parent/Holding

company and provides protection to the Directors and Officers of that

Company and also to:-

1) The Directors and Officers of all subsidiary companies.

2) The directors and Officers of all Subsidiary companies acquired orcreated during the period of the policy.

This policy may also be extended to provide what is termed as

Outside Board protection.


17/45

What Protection is Provided?

The policy protects the Directors and Officers against:-

1. It covers the directors and officers who commit a Wrongful Act intheir capacity as directors and officers of the company.

2. Legal costs in defending allegations or suits broughtagainst them alleging wrongful act.

3. Any awards granted to the claimants against the Directors &

Officers, including out of court settlements.


18/45

What is a Wrongful Act?

Wrongful Act is defined as : Any error Misstatement Misleading statement Providing relevant and concise data in form of Broking slips Act, omission, neglect Breach of duty, breach of trust or breach of warranty of authority Employment related Disputes - means any claim to a past present or

prospective employee of the company and arising out of any actual oralleged unfair or wrongful dismissal, discharge or termination, eitheractual or constructive, employment-related misrepresentation, wrongfulfailure to employ or promote, wrongful deprivation of careeropportunities, wrongful discipline; failure to grant tenure or negligent

employee evaluation; or sexual or workplace or racial or disabilityharassment of any kind or unlawful discrimination, whether direct,indirect, intentional or unintentional, or failure to provide adequateemployee policies and procedures, violation of any state law concerningdiscrimination


19/45

Type of Allegations

Shareholders- Inadequate or inaccurate disclosures- Financial Performance and Bankruptcy- Financial Reporting- Gross Mismanagement

- Conflict of Interest- Dishonesty or Fraud- Investment or Loan Decision

Employees

- Breach of Employment Contract- Employment Practices Liability - discrimination, sexual

harassment, unfair dismissal, invasion of privacy, failureto provide a proper or safe working environment


20/45

Type of Allegations

Customers and Clients- Lender Liability- Deceptive Trade Practices- Product or Service related claims

Competitors/ Clients- Antitrust- Copyright and Patent Infringement- Business Interference- Product and company defamation- Deceptive Trade Practices

Government and Regulators

- Dishonesty and Fraud- Securities Violation


21/45

Principal Policy Features

Scope of Cover

Cover 1 - Directors and Officers

To pay on behalf of the DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS all LOSS arisingout of a CLAIM for a WRONGFUL ACT for which coverage applies andfor which the DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS are not entitled toindemnification pursuant to 2 below.

Cover 2 - Company Reimbursement

To pay on behalf of the COMPANY all LOSS arising out of a CLAIM for aWRONGFUL ACT for which coverage applies and for which theCOMPANY is permitted or required by law common or statutory togrant indemnification to the DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS.


22/45


The policy being Claims Made Basis allows for indemnification of theclaims made during the policy period and hence covers the prior actsretroactively .

No right of Cancellation Severability of all Exclusions The policy covers all the Directors & Officers of the Company & its

subsidiaries and is not on named/numbered basis. Even the AssociateCompanies can also be added. Past, present and future directors andofficers are covered.

Directors are easily identifiable. Officers refer to employees occupying amanagement or supervisory capacity.

Cover also provided for administrative or regulatory proceeding or officialinvestigation .

Claims under Employment disputes also covered. Derivative action cover for Pollution claims Defense costs Legal Costs means legal and professional fees and expenses

reasonably incurred in the defense of actions, suits or proceedings andappeals there from as well as the cost of appeal, attachment and similarbonds. This does not include overhead or benefit expenses associatedwith salaries, wages and fees.


23/45


Scope of Cover (Contd.)

Aimed at protecting directors and officers of the company. It is therefore acover to protect individual corporate managers

The policy does not cover the company for its liability (though there areextensions available that will protect the company in certain areas).

The directors are protected against claims made by court appointed orexternally appointed liquidators and /or receivers

Defence costs cover if a director/officer is legally compelled to appear atan official investigation

Severability as to all policy exclusions and the application form

No restriction on prior acts/retroactive date.

Broad definition of Claim Includes Criminal proceedings, formaladministrative and regulatory proceedings

Any fresh IPOs or buy backs occurring during the policy period could alsobe covered at NIL or an Additional Premium subject to advising theinsurer


24/45


Few Extensions

Outside Directorship

Crisis Communication

Insured Vs Insured Pecuniary Penalties

Court Attendance Costs

EPL Entity Cover

Securities Entity Cover Predetermined Allocation of Legal Costs

Retrodate unlimited

Discovery Period


25/45

The Main Exclusions

Bodily Injury, Sickness, Disease, Death, or Damage / Destruction of Property.

Seepage & Pollution or Contamination. Liability of a Director or Officer to restore or account for Remuneration paid to him forwhich he is not legally entitled.

War and Civil War Exclusion ; Radioactive Contamination Exclusion

Terrorism Exclusion

USA / Canada Specific Exclusions

Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion at Inception

Major Shareholder Suits Exclusion at 15-20%

Absolute BI / PD and Professional Indemnity

Future Securities Offering Exclusion

Criminal Fines and Penalties.

Insured Vs Insured Claims

punitive or exemplary damages

Claims on Directors / Officers acting in a capacity as trustee or fiduciary under law(statutory or non-statutory including common) or administrator of any pension, profitsharing or employee benefits programme

Exclusion due to underwriting considerations - Insurers may in addition to the standardexclusions, endorse the Policy with additional exclusion because of the nature of the case.For example, the company may be facing litigation; therefore the Policy will exclude anyclaim or development arising from the claim. Family Holding / Parent Co. ex Is an exampleof this


26/45

Suggested Limits

The common factors taken into consideration for fixation of limits are :

The amount of coverage carried is very closely aligned with Asset size.

However, it is commonly held that the more relevant factor in determining the necessary limitof insurance purchased is the Market Capitalization of the Company. It can only take a small

drop in share price for shareholders to bring a suit so we would recommend that a directorconsiders this when choosing how much insurance to buy. A limit of at least 30-35% of theanticipated drop in share price ( at least 50%) should be safely taken for D&O.

Another important factor to be considered is that the limits opted for are inclusive of theDefense / legal costs. Taking into consideration the average time for settlement of a claim in

any country multiplied by the likely legal costs should safely be incorporated in the limits.

The other factors to be considered for limit fixation are overseas subsidiaries, US

exposure, JVs, Foreign / Independent Directors on Board , number of companies to be

covered etc.


27/45

Suggested Limits

Another consideration for the Assessment of Risk and loss arising out of a legal suit is

Balancing Costs against Risk.

Coverage Limits by Asset Size:

AverageUnder $100 million $ 5.8M$100-$400 million $ 14.4M

$400 million-$1 billion $ 27.1M$1 - $2 billion $ 46.0M$2 - $5 billion $ 50.9MOver $5 billion $100.3MAll Assets Sizes $ 27.6M

Total Limits by Ownership:

AverageFewer than 500 shareholders $ 8.03M500 or more shareholders(public) $39.51M


28/45

Distinguishing Advantages

Have tailor made and Serviced this policy for a varied clientele.

Have worked for PSU companies as Consultants for their PolicyProcurement Process and servicing.

Competitive Premiums

Wider Policy Wordings with no ambiguity on theInterpretation

The premium is not assessed on the basis of the number ofDirectors / officers to be covered which is a far more costlieroption.

Bankruptcy or insolvency does not cancel the policy.

90 days automatic cover for outside position /directorshiptaken by a director.

Claims Handling Ability in view of the in-depth experience onthis policy.


29/45

Claim Case Studies

Regulatory Claims The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has fined Reliance

Industries (RIL) a penalty of Rs. 4.75 lakh in a case related to violation ofSebis takeover regulations with respect to RILs holding in cement andengineering major L&T. Sebi sources confirmed the move and said itsinvestigation pertaining to violation of takeover regulations by RIL is nowover.

Top Officials of Stock Holding Corporation have been named in a Criminallawsuit relating to dishonoring of cheques issued by SHCIL. The client islooking to have their Defence costs paid under their D&O policy

ShareholdersClaims A public interest litigation has been filed by a JPIL shareholder alleging

violation of takeover code by the company. The shareholder has alleged

that during 1999-2000, the promoters of JPIL, Jaiprakash Gaur ' and hisassociates, had acquired 1,46,40,000 equity shares, which is around 10 percent of JPIL shares in 12 months without making a public offer. This is inviolation of the Sebi takeover code which allows creeping acquisition onlyup to 5 per cent during any 12 months.


30/45

Claim Case Studies

Miscellaneous Claims

ICICI Bank has lodged a claim under their D&O policy for Rs. 25 Crores as anoutcome of an ongoing legal battle initiated by Commerce bank. The case isrelated to funding of the Arvind Mills by ICICI Bank . Commece ban whichwas also part of the consortium had objections to this funding. The claimfiled under D&O policy for recovery of legal expenses.

Director Vs Director Claims

The Tatas have filed a police complaint recently against six top executivesincluding Dilip Pendse, the former managing Director of Tata Finance Ltd.(TFL), who were sacked last month following the discovery of unauthorized

transactions leading to substantial losses. The client has charged theaccused, Dilip Pendse and four others, of criminal conspiracy, falsification ofaccounts, forgery and criminal breach of trust causingsubstantial wrongfulloss to the company (TFL) and its investors, specially of the 9 per cent CCP.


31/45

Claim case studies

Merger & Acquisition Claims A shareholder class-action suit was filed against a parent company and its

directors and officers alleging the defendants were attempting to acquire100% ownership of a partially owned subsidiary for grossly inadequateconsideration. The subsidiary was 61% owned by the parent company,and the remainder was publicly owned. The parent company wasattempting to purchase the remaining 39% interest from the public,thereby turning the entity into a wholly owned subsidiary. The case was

settled out of court with the defendants agreeing to pay $1.15 million toplaintiffs to cover their attorney's fees in the litigation. The defendantsincurred defense expenses of approximately $1.2 million.

Employment Practices Claims In 1994, Directors of an American Corporation was sued by 6 African-

American employees for alleged racial discrimination in the Corporations

hiring and promotion practices. The case settled in 1996 for $175 million.Employment Practices Claims

An ex-employee of Infosys in US filed a Sexual Harassment case against theCompany and its former Director . The case was settled out of Court forUS$3 MN. D&O underwriters paid for the DirectorsDamages (US$1.5 MN )and the defence costs (US$900,000). (Detailed write up in Slide no. 32)


32/45

Claim case studies

Infosys case:Mr. Narayana Murthy Chairman and chief mentor of Infosys ofInfosys Technologies Ltd (NASDAQ:INFY) said:

Infosys has learned that the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Ms.Jennifer Griffith, a former employee against the company and Mr.Phaneesh Murthy, a former director has been settled by Mr. PhaneeshMurthy and Ms. Griffith shortly before October 29, 2004 the trial date

set for the lawsuitstrial. Infosys has now learned that the settlementagreement was recently signed by the parties to the settlementagreement- Mr. Phaneesh Murthy and Ms. Griffith.

Infosys did not contribute any money to the settlement and was not asignatory to the settlement agreement. However, Infosys has learnedfrom its insurerscounsel that the settlement releases Infosys from all

claims and liabilities alleged in the lawsuit. Infosys learnt from itsinsurerscouncil that the insurerscontributed US$400,000 towardsthe settlement and this represents 50% of the total settlementpayment. The remaining 50% of the contribution was paid by Mr.Phaneesh Murthy since Infosys refused to make any contribution tothe settlement.


33/45

Claim case studies

Outside Board Directorship Claims

A Director of a Company in Hong Kong was asked by his Company to sit onthe Board of another company in which it had a financial interest. The Boardof this other Company was subsequently accused by the regulatory authoritiesof having been in breach of local regulations. Although it was able tosuccessfully defend these allegations, the legal defense costs for all the BoardMembers was more than US$400,000 per Director. The breaches which were

alleged to have taken place were unknown to the one Director who wasassigned to the Board of that Company but this made no difference to his needto defend himself against the allegations for which he was held personallyliable.

Shareholder Claim on an Indian Company related to ADR listing

An Indian Portal company listed on the US stock Exchange and its Directorsand officers have been recently faced with a class action suit from itsShareholders for not disclosing material information in their prospectus, mis-statement and omissions.

Claim case studies


34/45

Claim case studies Ex-DirectorsClaims on Subhiksha Case

PremjiInvest, the $1 billion private equity fund owned by Azim Premji, thebillionaire chairman of Wipro Ltd, is saying it was taken for a ride on Subhiksha,the now-shuttered retailer in which it had invested Rs 230 crore in early 2008.Investment banking sources said the private equity firm was understood to havesaid it was misled on the true financial position of Subhiksha, which has promptedit to send notices to the other directors on Subhikshasboard, including those fromICICI Venture, which sold a part of its stake to Zash Investment, an investmentvehicle of PremjiInvest. PremjiInvest officials confirmed the communication butdeclined to share the details.

Sexual Harassment case

Coca-Cola India has paid beauty queen Sushmita Sen Rs 1.45 crore to buy hersilence over an alleged sexual harassment case against its marketing head SripadNadkarni. Sen made the allegation soon after Coca-Cola terminated its celebrityengagement contract with her on February 23. She alleged this was being done

because she had rejected the sexual overtures of a senior Coke official. Senslawyers also claimed sum of Rs 1.45 crore by way of compensation for sexualharassment should be paid by way of charity to an orphanage of our clients choice.The sum has since been paid by Coke. But according to the copy of the cheque ofABN Amro Bank (No 932968, dated September 19, 03), a payment of Rs 1.45 crorehas been made to Sen, not to any charity


35/45

Claim case studies

Satyam Fiasco:

This is one insurance that has failed to bring relief to Satyam as thecompanysclaims towards the legal costs have been rejected by Tatagroups insurance venture Tata AIG. Tata AIG has, in its preliminaryview, disputed the claim sent by Satyam under its Directors & OfficersLiability Policy (D&O Policy), subject to the company providing

additional documentation and information. The primary policy wasissued by TATA AIG, along with The New India Assurance and ICICILombard, forming multiple layers of cover. Satyam sent claimnotifications regarding receipt of notices from several regulatoryauthorities and the Class Actions. It had also enclosed copies of lettersfrom directors and officers on likelihood of potential claims. However,TATA AIG has sought additional documentation and information.Satyam expressed its disagreement with positions taken by TATA AIG,but agreed to furnish additional details. Satyam had incurredinsurance cost of Rs three crore in October-December 2008 and Rsone crore each in January and February.

Top Five Largest Securities Class Action


36/45

Top Five Largest Securities Class ActionSettlements

Rankings Company Year SettlementValue ($Mn)

1 Lerach Coughlin Stoia GellerRudman & Robbins

2006 $7,307

2 Bernstein Litowitz Berger &Grossmann

2005 $3,745

3 Cendant Corp. 2000 $3,528

4 WorldCom,Inc. 2004 $2,629

5 Lucent Technologies ,Inc. 2003 $517

According to the PwC study, between 1996 and 2004 there were 153 securities class actions that

involved both SEC and DOJ investigations, of which 90 percent, involved accounting issues. CFOs

were named as defendants in 83 percent of all class actions filed in 2004

S it Cl A ti S ttl t


37/45

Security Class Action Settlements

*Source: Stanford law school research


38/45

Brief about the cases involving Federal Court Securities class


39/45

American Italian Pasta Company (Pink Sheets: AITP), announced that it hasentered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") with lead plaintiff in thepending federal securities class action lawsuit. The Company also addressedcurrent durum wheat market conditions and announced the additional retirement ofdebt under its credit facility.

DHB Industries said it intends to settle numerous class action lawsuits and oneshareholder derivative suit for more than $35 million. The suits accuse DHBdirectors and officers of pumping up DHB's stock price by misrepresenting itsproducts and then selling the shares at the inflated prices

UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) announced it has reached an agreement inprinciple with lead plaintiff California Public Employees' Retirement System(CalPERS) and plaintiff class representative Alaska Plumbing and PipefittingIndustry Pension Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to settlethe federal securities class action lawsuit arising from the consolidated amendedcomplaint filed on December 8, 2006, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota againstthe Company and certain current and former officers and directors relating to its

Brief about the cases involving Federal Court Securities classAction Settlements Involving Corporate Governance Changes

Cont


40/45

HCA Inc. (HCA) has tentatively agreed to settle several shareholder

class action lawsuits for $49.5 million, the company said Thursday in itsthird-quarter report. In the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, the managed care services provider also said it reached apreliminary understanding with insurers that are expected to pay themajority of the settlement. HCA would establish a settlement fund to

pay class members based on individual claims under the tentativeagreeement reached in the third quarter.

Mattel Inc. on Thursday closed the books on what has been called oneof the worst acquisitions in corporate history, announcing a $122-million

settlement with shareholders over its ill-fated purchase of Learning Co.The El Segundo-based toy maker said it would take a $25.5-millionpretax charge in the fourth quarter to cover legal fees and an uninsuredportion of the settlement, with the balance to be paid by insurers.Mattel's settlement ranks No. 12 on the list of largest monetaryagreements between a company and its shareholders, according to

Cont

F A d F


41/45

Facts And Figures

Claim Susceptibility and Frequency by Asset Size

Company Size Susceptibility Frequency

Under $100 Million 12% 17

$100 - $400 Million 24% 34

$400 Million - $1 Billion 31% 50$1 - $2 Billion 37% 61

$2 - $5 Billion 37% 74

$5 - $10 Billion 44% 84

Over $10 Billion 63% 4.87

All Assets Sizes 31% 0.87

Facts And Fig res


42/45

Facts And Figures

Claim Susceptibility and Frequency by Business Class

Susceptibility FrequencyPetroleum, Mining & Agricultural 32% 0.71High Technology 27% 0.47Durable Goods Manufacturing 26% 0.52Nondurable Goods Manufacturing 28% 0.42

Transportation & Communications 34% 1.18Utilities 46% 0.76Merchandising 33% 0.61Large Banking 42% 0.69Non-Banking Financial Services 34% 0.95Construction & Real Estate 28% 0.63

Personal & Business Services 24% 0.34Middle Market Banking 19% 0.30

All Business Classes 31% 0.8

Private Securities Litigation


43/45

Private Securities LitigationHistorical Claim Frequency by Sector


44/45

Facts And Figures

Number of Claims by Source and Allegation Worldwide% of AllClaims

A. Past, current or prospective employees

or unions 49

B. Competitors, suppliers and other contractors 8C. Customers, clients, ratepayers, students

and consumer groups 14

D. Government and regulatory agencies 2

E. Other third-party claimants 4

F. Shareholders and other investors, including

partners and members, prior owners 23


45/45

THANK YOU

Disclaimer: To the best of our knowledge, the information supplied in this document is accurate. JKRisk Managers & Insurance Brokers Ltd nor any entity of JK Organization assumes any legal liabilityor responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or processdisclosed in this presentation. Information has been gathered from the website, journals and variousother sources and wherever possible we have mentioned the source JK Insurance accepts no liabilityfor any loss arising out of your reliance on information, which has been supplied.

Director and officer liability

Documents

Transcript of Director and officer liability