The global data center industry is experiencing unprecedented growth. According to Fortune Business Insights, the global data center market reached $269.79 billion in 2025. This market is projected to grow to $300.64 billion in 2026, and then more than double to $699.13 billion by 2034, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 11.10%. North America accounted for roughly 38.5% of the global market share in 2025. The capital flowing into this sector is staggering: McKinsey estimates that companies across the compute power value chain will need to invest $5.2 trillion into data centers by 2030 to meet worldwide artificial intelligence (“AI”) demand, with an accelerated scenario requiring as much as $7.9 trillion in capital investments. Goldman Sachs projects total hyperscaler capital expenditure from 2025 through 2027 will reach $1.15 trillion—more than double the $477 billion spent from 2022 to 2024—and anticipates roughly $7.6 trillion of cumulative AI-related capital expenditure between 2026 and 2031. BloombergNEF reports that the 14 largest publicly owned data center operators globally are projected to spend close to $750 billion in capital expenditures in 2026 alone, up from approximately $450 billion in 2025. The data center industry has become a behemoth in a shockingly short amount of time.
Continue Reading The Data Center Boom and D&O Insurance: Navigating Uncharted Liability Exposure in a High-Growth Industry
Parent Company Beware: Subsidiaries’ Fidelity Bond Claims May Belong to FDIC in Receivership
In March 2023, we wrote about the failure of Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) and potential implications of its takeover by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC”). As we noted then, the FDIC, as receiver for SVB, has broad discretion to manage the bank’s assets and liabilities, including selling assets for the benefit of creditors and bailing out the distressed bank.
Continue Reading Parent Company Beware: Subsidiaries’ Fidelity Bond Claims May Belong to FDIC in ReceivershipWhen Your D&O Insurer Wants Its Money Back — With Interest
Most policyholders purchasing directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance never contemplate the possibility that their insurer will one day demand repayment of advanced defense costs, let alone seek interest on top of repayment. Although many D&O policies preserve an insurer’s contractual right to seek reimbursement of defense costs that are ultimately determined not to be covered, insurers rarely exercise that right. Even rarer is a case in which an insurer not only litigates to recoup the advanced defense costs, but then seeks prejudgment interest on top of the amounts repaid. A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Navigators Insurance Co. v. Under Armour, Inc., No. CV RDB-22-2481 (D. Md. July 7, 2026), presents precisely this seldom-litigated scenario. This case serves as a cautionary lesson to policyholders regarding reimbursement provisions and interim funding agreements, which can have significant consequences.
Continue Reading When Your D&O Insurer Wants Its Money Back — With InterestNon-Deal Exposure: Practical Tips for Enhancing Insurance Coverage For Private Equity Funds and Portfolio Companies
When private equity fund managers think about insurance, they usually think of Representations & Warranties Insurance (“RWI”). That makes sense—RWI covers representations baked into the deal itself that are front of mind when buying and selling portfolio companies (“PortCos”). But once a deal closes and a PortCo continues operations under new PE ownership, a whole new set of operational issues unrelated to pre-closing representations can surface, giving rise to potential claims under a host of different lines of insurance, including directors and officers (“D&O”), errors and omissions (“E&O”), cyber, crime/fiduciary, general/limited partner (“GP/LP”), commercial general liability (“CGL”), and property policies, among others. To make matters worse, coverage gaps between policies issued at the fund level and the PortCo level, finger-pointing between insurers, lapsed policies, and inadequate coverage can result in substantial financial losses for the PE Fund and PortCo alike.
Continue Reading Non-Deal Exposure: Practical Tips for Enhancing Insurance Coverage For Private Equity Funds and Portfolio CompaniesDelaware Supreme Court Affirms D&O Coverage in Harman International Bump-Up Exclusion Dispute
On January 27, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a significant pro-policyholder decision affirming that directors and officers (“D&O”) insurers must cover a $28 million settlement paid by Harman International Industries Inc., to resolve stockholder litigation arising from its multi-billion dollar sale to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that
Fifth Circuit Issues Pro-Policyholder Ruling that ADR Proceeding Triggered Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify
On October 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant decision clarifying that an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law extends to a contractually mandated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceeding.[i] The Fifth Circuit reversed a magistrate judge’s dismissal of BPX Production Co.’s (BPX) coverage claims, holding that an ADR proceeding triggers an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy—thus rejecting the insurer’s argument that a “suit” was required. Further, the Fifth Circuit held that an insurer’s conduct can waive conditions to coverage. This decision provides important guidance for corporate policyholders navigating insurance disputes involving an ADR proceeding, policy defenses asserted by insurers, and the assignment of insurance rights to maximize an insurance recovery in the circumstance of a bankruptcy.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Issues Pro-Policyholder Ruling that ADR Proceeding Triggered Insurer’s Duty to Defend and IndemnifyThe Archdiocese Resurrects Faith in the New York Court System: New York Supreme Court Issues Another Decision Allowing a New York Policyholder to Seek Damages for Bad-Faith Claim Handling
Last month, the New York Supreme Court issued a well-reasoned order denying the Archdiocese’s insurers’[1] motion to dismiss its claim against them for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the policyholder’s complaint sufficiently alleged its Insurers claim handling conduct amounted to bad faith.[2] The Order is part of a new trend in New York that allows bad-faith claims to proceed when styled as claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, where the conduct supporting the alleged bad-faith claim is independent of the alleged conduct giving rise to a breach of contract claim, and the policyholder sufficiently alleges damages arising from the bad-faith conduct.
Continue Reading The Archdiocese Resurrects Faith in the New York Court System: New York Supreme Court Issues Another Decision Allowing a New York Policyholder to Seek Damages for Bad-Faith Claim HandlingThe SEC’s Cybersecurity Incident, Governance, and Management Reporting Requirements: What you Need to Know to Avoid Cyber and D&O Coverage Gaps
The SEC public company cyber disclosure rule raises issues that companies should consider in reviewing existing insurance coverage and in assessing overall risk.
The SEC recently adopted a new cybersecurity disclosure related rule (the “SEC Cyber Disclosure Rule”)[1] in response to increasing risks associated with cyber incidents and a perceived need for investors to receive more fulsome corporate disclosures about cybersecurity risks, governance, and material incidents. In prior efforts to improve consistency and accuracy of public company cybersecurity risk disclosures, the SEC issued interpretive guidance explaining how cybersecurity risk and incidents should be communicated based on long-standing requirements to periodically—and as needed—disclose material information to shareholders.[2] But in spite of this guidance, in the SEC’s view corporate disclosure practices remained inconsistent, under-disclosure persisted, and investors lacked consistent information by which they could evaluate public companies’ cybersecurity risk. In July 2023, the SEC adopted the SEC Cyber Disclosure Rule, which mandated new disclosures among other things, and which became effective in December 2023.
Continue Reading The SEC’s Cybersecurity Incident, Governance, and Management Reporting Requirements: What you Need to Know to Avoid Cyber and D&O Coverage GapsXerox Obtains Important Pro-Policyholder Decision in New York’s First Department, Adopting Narrow Construction of “Arising From” Exclusions and Confirming That Insurers Who Show Indifference to Policyholders’ Rights May Be Liable for Bad Faith in New York
In March last year, New York’s Appellate Division – First Department issued Xerox an important pro-policyholder decision in its D&O insurance recovery action against Travelers, arising from Xerox’s failed 2018 merger with Fujifilm. In a thoughtful order, the court issued three key pro-policyholder rulings that: (1) reinforce the rule that the words “arising from” when used in policy exclusions should be narrowly construed under New York law; (2) recognize that an insurer who shows bad faith indifference to its policyholder’s rights may be held liable for a breach of the duty of good faith and extracontractual damages under New York law; and (3) held that the reasonableness of an underlying settlement is an issue of fact that should go to the jury. A copy of the Court’s decision is available here.
Continue Reading Xerox Obtains Important Pro-Policyholder Decision in New York’s First Department, Adopting Narrow Construction of “Arising From” Exclusions and Confirming That Insurers Who Show Indifference to Policyholders’ Rights May Be Liable for Bad Faith in New YorkRecent Decision from Eastern District of New York Confirms D&O Coverage for False Claims Act Defense Costs
A recent decision by a federal court in the Eastern District of New York illustrates how directors and officers (“D&O”) policies can provide valuable insurance coverage for defense costs and potential liabilities arising from False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation. In Northern Metropolitan Foundation for Healthcare, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Company, Case No. 20-CV-2224 (EK)