NYC Investment Firm Entitled to Insurance Payment on $14.5M in Legal Costs, Del. Court Says
Judge William C. Carpenter said Wednesday that AR Capital, a New York-based investment and advisory firm, was covered under VEREIT's insurance policy for management services it had provided to VEREIT before the errors were discovered in late 2014.
December 13, 2018 at 05:43 PM
4 minute read
A Delaware Superior Court judge has ruled that AR Capital is entitled to insurance payments to cover legal costs stemming from multiple lawsuits and a regulatory investigation into a $23 million accounting error at real estate investment firm VEREIT Inc.
Judge William C. Carpenter said Wednesday that AR Capital, a New York-based investment and advisory firm, was covered under VEREIT's insurance policy for management services it had provided to VEREIT before the errors were discovered in late 2014.
At the time AR Capital filed its complaint in 2016, the company had incurred about $14.5 million in legal fees to McKool Smith and Potter Anderson & Corroon, according to court documents.
The summary judgement ruling from Carpenter rejected VEREIT's claim that AR Capital was excluded from coverage under the firm's policy as a lawyer-created assertion, and ordered VEREIT's insurers to begin making the payments immediately.
“Payment of these costs has been pending for years, and the insurers are obligated to advance these costs,” Carpenter said in a 38-page memorandum opinion.
The case stemmed from VEREIT's September 2014 investigation into reporting irregularities, which caused the firm to restate its financial results for four straight quarters, starting in the second half of 2013.
The chief financial officer and the head accountant of the firm, which was doing business as American Realty Capital Properties both resigned in the aftermath, and the company later changed its name to VEREIT.
An investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission targeted VEREIT's directors and officers, and regulators subpoenaed AR Capital for documents related to its external management of VEREIT, as well as its knowledge of the firm's financials. The debacle also sparked multiple lawsuits against VEREIT and AR Capital alleging years-long accounting fraud.
AR Capital sued in 2016 demanding payment from VEREIT's insurers, but the case quickly took on new life after VEREIT intervened, arguing that AR Capital would have to seek coverage under its own liability insurance program. AR Capital then accused VEREIT of fraud in diverting the insurance assets, in a move that Carpenter said “exploded the litigation beyond any reasonable common sense.”
“As such, what should be cooperative litigation by two companies to maximize insurance coverage, has turned into a fight between them (or at least their counsel), with coverage of legal fees still not provided,” the judge wrote.
At issue in the case was a contractual provision regarding coverage for “company wrongful acts.” Although Carpenter said the language was “sloppily and poorly written,” there was nothing to suggest that the policies were intended only to provide coverage to VEREIT.
“If the parties to this insurance policy wanted to exclude AR Capital from [the] coverage, distinguishing it from the other 'company' entities, they could have simply stated so,” Carpenter said. “Even a non-lawyer with elementary comprehension of the English language could have created such an exception.”
An attorney for AR Capital declined to comment, and an attorney for VEREIT did not return a call Thursday afternoon seeking comment on the ruling.
AR Capital is represented by Robin L. Cohen and Natasha Romagnoli of McKool Smith in New York and Jennifer C. Wasson and Carla M. Jones of Potter Anderson.
VEREIT is represented by Joseph D. Jean, Alexander D. Hardiman and Benjamin D. Tievsky of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in New York and Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere of Bayard in Wilmington.
The case is captioned AR Capital v. XL Specialty Insurance Co.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250