Tom Breen was quoted in Law360 in the article, “Towers Watson Ruling Energizes Bump Up Supporters, Critics,” on March 14, discussing a Virginia federal court’s ruling that insurers did not have to cover shareholder suit settlements, supporting their use of the bump-up exclusion.
Tom noted that “it was an easy conclusion for the court to find that the settlement represented…inadequate consideration, which of course falls right into the wording of the bump-up clause, which talks about a settlement representing an amount by which the price or consideration is effectively increased, which is what this was.” He said that “the only appealable issue would appear to be whether the settlement represented an increase in consideration.”