D&O: Is it Covered? Disgorgement, Restitution, Ill Gotten Gains

By Susanne Murray, Executive Vice President, Alliant

Some D&O policies expressly say that Loss does not include restitution or other restitutionary amounts such as disgorgement, claw-back reimbursement, return of ill-gotten gains or other amounts required or demanded to be paid back (collectively restitution for purposes of this note).

Although all of these terms are used interchangeably at times, they can generally be distinguished as follows:

Restitution – returning, restoring or preserving money or other property, or the value of such other property, to the proper owner.

Disgorgement – the act of giving up something (such as profits illegally obtained) on demand or by legal compulsion. This is an equitable remedy designed to deter future violations and to deprive wrongdoers of the proceeds of their wrongful conduct.

Reimbursement of amounts that are considered to be ill-gotten gain – amounts obtained by dishonest means.

Claw-back amounts –  such amounts are most notably laid out in Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (recovery of certain compensation required because of misconduct) and Section 954 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (recovery of erroneously awarded compensation without the misconduct requirement).

The definition of covered loss differs by Insurer and insurance policy so some cover a wider array of costs than others (for example, plaintiff’s attorney fees are sometimes specifically listed in the definition).  Most generally include the following amounts as covered loss:

  • Damages, judgments, pre- and post-judgment interest, settlements and defense costs;
  • Punitive, exemplary and multiplied damages;
  • Certain types of fines and penalties, such as limited Foreign Corrupt Practices Act civil fines and penalties and similar anti-bribery laws within and outside the U.S.  In some instances, a broader range of fines and penalties may be insured.

Recent D&O policies may also expressly include some element of claw-back costs. This expansion of coverage specifically for claw-back costs is generally accompanied with language that this does not include payment, return, reimbursement, disgorgement or restitution of any such amounts requested or required to be repaid. Instead, the policy will cover the cost incurred to facilitate the return of some amounts.

The definition of Loss typically includes a list of amounts that are not covered, often including fines, penalties, taxes, environmental clean-up costs, and matters uninsurable under the law. The great majority of policies do not mention disgorgement or restitution other than in connection with claw-back coverage.

In addition to the definition of covered loss, the most likely exclusions on a D&O policy that might be relevant to coverage for actual or alleged restitution are the personal profit or advantage exclusion and any exclusion for an accounting of profits (not a standard exclusion). When considering the potential for coverage for restitution, these exclusions and any other potentially applicable exclusions should be closely examined to determine if they are implicated. For example, if the exclusion is only triggered once there is a final adjudication that the prohibited conduct occurred, then allegations of such prohibited conduct, or specific relief sought in such claims, until such final adjudication are not excluded from coverage.

There are some coverage issues to consider when thinking about coverage for restitutionary amounts:

Do you want coverage for this?


  • Protects individuals from taking money out of their own pockets
  • Protects balance sheet where company indemnifies individuals


  • Erodes policy limits
  • May send the wrong message and can damage reputation (being seen as condoning wrongful conduct)

Can you get coverage for this?

  • Defense costs coverage?
  • Express coverage?
  • Can silence mean coverage?

As indicated in the beginning of this note, some Insurers expressly exclude coverage. Those Insurers without express exclusionary language in their policies do at times still assert that such amounts are not covered loss for several reasons:

  • The amounts are uninsurable or insurance payments are otherwise against public policy
  • For public companies, claims for restitution  may not flow from securities claims and therefore may not be covered for the entity
  • A personal profit or financial advantage exclusion may preclude coverage if the exclusion is triggered

Express coverage for actual restitution, disgorgement, return of ill-gotten gains or claw back amounts is uncommon and largely unavailable. It is still worth further discussion, particularly when considering the possibility of insuring such amounts outside the U.S. and the supervision of U.S. courts.

Facilitation costs in connection with claw-back claims is generally available though at times must be requested as it is not necessarily in the boilerplate of every policy.

Defense costs coverage would generally be available for claims seeking such damages whether or not expressly stated. Most policies will expressly state it anyway.

Overall, the question of coverage for payment of disgorgement, restitution, ill-gotten gains or claw-back amounts is worth the conversation.

Paying Overtime is Cheaper than Getting Sued for the Failure to Pay: Wage and Hour Claims and Insurance Coverage

By James Tolfree, Senior Vice President, Alliant

Employers face a host of wage and hour exposures from employees. Assertions and claims can include overtime wages were owed, but not paid, lack of compliance with break periods, allegations of wrongful deductions from pay checks, failure to pay wages for off-the-clock work and failure to timely pay wages upon an employee being terminated. Further allegations can include the misclassification of employees as independent contractors or the misclassification of exempt or non-exempt status.

The litigation costs that can arise from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), US Department of Labor rules and other state and federal laws can be quite substantial.  Bank of America’s $73MM settlement was in regards to litigation accusing it of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring more than 180,000 hourly employees to work off-the-clock. T.G.I. Friday’s $19.1MM settlement included allegations of minimum wage violations, unpaid overtime, work without pay and tip credit issues.

In addition to employees, employers are also exposed to independent contractor liability.  A new Maryland law makes general contractors responsible if a subcontractor fails to pay their employees the wages that are owed.

A key element in reducing the risks of incurring these types of claims and lawsuits is having a strong written wage and hour policy. This policy should include timekeeping, break times and complaint procedures. Employees need to know the procedures to submit a wage and hour complaint. Employers should require employees to provide a written acknowledgement of the accuracy of recorded time worked. Outside counsel should review the policy and employers must keep the policies current. Audits of a company’s compliance with various wage and hour laws and regulations are vital and a best practice is to incorporate a dedicated team that focuses specifically on wage and hour compliance.

Regarding independent contractors, employers must pay very close attention to the indemnification provisions in their service contracts. Employers may require independent contractors to procure their own insurance to protect against wage and hour claims. It is also important to conduct sufficient due diligence to ensure the independent contractor has the financial wherewithal to honor the indemnity provisions of the contract.

Employment Practices Liability provides protections for various work place torts and third party exposures. Those policies generally exclude wage and hour claims, though some policies offer a smaller defense costs sub-limit. An additional solution is obtaining a wage and hour insurance policy. This can be purchased as a standalone policy or combined with an Employment Practices Liability policy. This wage and hour product was introduced out of the Bermuda market place several years ago. It can provide coverage for both defense and indemnity obligations. Both the premium and retention have come down significantly in recent years. The combined product protects against employment and third party claims and wage and hour liability including plaintiff’s fees.

Employers should take preventative measures to avoid being outflanked and caught off guard by these costly exposures. Strong, clear and currently updated wage and hour policies and service contract indemnification provisions can provide pre-emptive protections while an employment practices liability and wage and hour policy can provide an important financial back stop.