Angelo G. Savino concentrates his practice on matters involving directors & officers liability, professional errors and omissions liability, fiduciary liability, employment practices liability, and corporate indemnification. With more than 30 years as a practicing attorney, he has extensive experience handling all aspects of coverage analysis, claims management, mediation, and settlement of all types of claims, including securities class actions, derivative actions, employment practices, ERISA and other complex litigation.
Angelo has represented major D&O and fiduciary insurers in a number of "mega cases" in both U.S. and international matters. He has extensive experience as insurer coverage counsel handling all aspects of '33 Act and '34 Act securities class actions, including analysis of potential damages exposure and negotiation of settlements. He has also handled matters involving investigations and litigation by the SEC, the Department of Justice, and the Ontario Securities Commission; claims against investment advisers and mutual funds; shareholder derivative claims; claims against pharmaceutical manufacturers; claims involving private equity firms and their portfolio companies; and claims against banks and other financial institutions.
Angelo has litigated coverage cases in state and federal courts for professional liability insurers, involving a wide variety of coverage terms and provisions. He has also handled litigation and settlement of rescission claims based on misrepresentations in financial statements on which the policies were underwritten, as well as with respect to coverage for ERISA "stock drop" cases. In addition, Angelo has counseled clients regarding policy drafting issues and has extensive experience litigating insurance coverage matters in numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States.
Angelo earned his undergraduate degree from Fordham University, and his law degree from Fordham University School of Law, where he was an editor of the Fordham Law Review.
September 22, 2014
Angelo Savino of the Global Insurance Department was quoted in a Law360 article titled "Unfinished-Business Suits Live On Despite NY Drubbing."
September 05, 2014
Angelo Savino, of the Global Insurance Department, is quoted in this Law360 Article titled "Goldman's Vague Corporate Titles May Still Cost It Millions" on Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. may have won over the Third Circuit when the court axed an award of legal fees to a former vice president accused of stealing trading code, but the bank could have avoided the mess — and the prospect of further litigation — had it better defined what being a Goldman VP means, attorneys say.
December 16, 2013
Angelo Savino and Kristie Abel, members of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance Group, recently published an article titled “Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs Provides Valuable D&O Insight” in Law360. The article discusses how the Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs decision provides an interesting lesson in the differences between indemnification and advancement and who may be considered an officer for purposes of awarding indemnity and advancement.
June 10, 2013
In an article titled, "2nd Circuit Walls Off Favored Path To Early Excess Coverage," Angelo Savino (New York, NY) of the Global Insurance Group comments on the topic of the Second Circuit last week gutting a key precedent that policyholders have long used to argue that excess liability insurers should drop down and pay for losses not covered by lower-level carriers, drawing narrow boundaries around an influential 1928 decision in ruling against the officers of bankrupt technology company Commodore International Ltd.
June 04, 2013
In an article titled, "Ex-Goldman VP Tourre loses bid to narrow SEC fraud case," Angelo Savino (New York, NY) of the firms Global Insurance Group discusses Former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Vice President Fabrice Tourre losing a bid to limit a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission civil fraud case against him over a transaction that led to a $550 million settlement by the Wall Street bank.
June 08, 2009
Cozen O’Connor recently announced that Angelo Savino joined as member of the global insurance group. Savino will practice from the firm’s New York Downtown office. His arrival marks Cozen O’Connor’s continued growth in the New York market, with the firm welcoming more than 30 attorneys in recent months and increasing its presence in the city to almost 100.
October 12, 2016
Angelo G. Savino and Alexander Selarnick discuss the Seventh Circuit's decision in Allen v. GreatBanc Trust Co and its ramifications for ERISA plan fiduciaries and their insurers.
March 07, 2016
Angelo Savino and Nicholas Bamman discuss a federal court decision in Louisiana providing a rare analysis of the interplay between a duty to defend in a D&O policy and the allocation clause in that same policy.
July 02, 2015
Looking to the fact allegations in the complaint against the insureds, the court found that but for the individual actions as trustees there would be no claim against any insured entity.
May 28, 2015
In Tibble v. Edison International, the Supreme Court ruled that trustees of ERISA plans owe a continuing duty to monitor trust investments on a regular basis and remove those that become imprudent.
May 14, 2015
The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously held that when an insured fails to seek its insurer’s consent to settle a claim, the insured cannot pursue litigation against its insurer to recover settlement amounts paid by the insured without its insurer’s consent or for bad faith refusal to settle.
April 23, 2015
On April 20, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously held that when an insured fails to seek its insurer’s consent to settle a claim, the insured cannot pursue litigation against its insurer to recover settlement amounts paid by the insured without its insurer’s consent or for bad faith refusal to settle.
July 30, 2014
In an article published in Law360, Angelo Savino and Julie Albright of the Global Insurance Department discuss unfinished business claims. In a departure from Jewel v. Boxer, the decisions in the cases of Thelen LLP and Heller Ehrman LLP reflect a shift in the manner by which courts treat trustees’ claims for post-dissolution fees, say Angelo Savino and Julie Moeller Albright of Cozen O'Connor.
July 17, 2014
The New York Court of Appeals recently confirmed that the heightened timeliness of disclaimer requirement in New York Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) does not apply to claims arising from property damage, in KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., et al., 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4113 (N.Y. June 10, 2014). Unanimously reversing the appellate division, the KeySpan court found that this standard for waiver of coverage defenses extends only when an insured seeks coverage under a New York liability policy for bodily injuries or death sustained in New York. Because this dispute arose from property damage claims, the insurers, which previously reserved their rights, had no duty under the statute to disclaim “as soon as reasonably possible.”
July 10, 2014
Over the past year, directors and officers have been anticipating the Supreme Court’s ruling in Halliburton Co. et al. v. Erica John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317. In its recent 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court retained the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance adopted more than 25 years ago in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, yet also held that defendants may rebut the presumption at the class certification stage. 573 U S. ___ (Slip Op. June 23, 2014) (Roberts, C.J.). This ruling signals that securities fraud class actions will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. Justice Ginsburg concurred in a separate opinion, joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor. Justice Thomas also concurred in a separate opinion, joined by Justice Alito and Justice Scalia.
July 10, 2014
On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoffer, declared that no “presumption of prudence” applied to fiduciaries of “employee stock ownership plans” (ESOPs). In rejecting the defense-friendly standard, the high court noted that ESOP fiduciaries are subject to the same duty of prudence as any other ERISA fiduciary except that ESOP fiduciaries are not liable for losses that stem from a failure to diversify. The decision is also noteworthy in that it set forth guidelines for lower courts to follow at the motion to dismiss stage that will impact how plaintiffs are able to satisfy pleading requirements in cases against ESOP fiduciaries.
June 10, 2014
On June 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed Judge Rakoff’s opinion in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., holding that the judge had abused his discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in analyzing the consent decree and setting a trial date. In doing so, the Circuit Court emphasized that a District Court must defer to the SEC’s discretion with respect to structuring consent judgments.
May 08, 2014
Litigation over challenges to corporate mergers has swelled in recent years, exposing directors, officers and their D&O insurers to large amounts of defense costs and potentially great liability. The Delaware Chancery Court recently issued an opinion analyzing and explaining the various standards by which courts review challenges to director decision-making in the merger context, which provides a thorough summary for all interested parties.
April 01, 2014
Angelo G. Savino, a shareholder in the Global Insurance Department, authored an article titled Event Horizon featured in the April 2014 issue of [Best’s Review]. In the article Angelo discusses the Haliburton v. Erica P. John Fund Supreme Court case and other factors that could have major impact on the D&O space in 2014.
November 25, 2013
On November 12, 2013, in Quellos Group LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of two excess professional liability insurers because the excess policies “require[d] exhaustion of the underlying liability limits by actual payment by the insurer before excess coverage is triggered ...” even though the insured “filled the gap” by paying the difference between the value of the settlement with the primary carrier and the primary policy's limits. This holding represents the latest in a growing line of cases finding that an insured cannot settle with an underlying insurer for less than policy limits, absorb the difference between the settlement value and the limits, and then trigger excess coverage.
November 12, 2013
Recently, in IBEW Local 90 Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 11-cv-4209, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155136 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2013), District Judge Kathleen Forrest declined to certify a class of securities plaintiffs and granted the defendant, Deutsche Bank’s (DB), Daubert motion to exclude all testimony of the plaintiffs’ market efficiency and damages expert. This relatively rare ruling is significant for securities defendants and their D&O insurers. As the court observed, because the vast majority of securities cases settle once a class is certified, class certification has come to mark a “crucial inflection point in securities litigation.” The case highlights a significant hurdle that securities plaintiffs may face at the class certification stage. Moreover, the decision illustrates how foreign issuers in a post-Morrison environment may be further insulated from U.S. liability even as to that portion of their securities traded on a domestic exchange.
October 31, 2013
On October 16, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Aleynikov v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., found that a former vice president and computer programmer was an “officer” of Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. (GSCo), and therefore eligible for advancement of legal fees and expenses for his ongoing defense in a New York state criminal case, even though the criminal action concerned the theft of confidential GSCo property. The decision provides an interesting lesson in the differences between indemnification and advancement and who may be considered an officer for purposes of awarding indemnity and advancement.
June 28, 2013
Law 360 reports that policyholders have chalked up major wins at the New York Court of Appeals and the Illinois Supreme Court this year, clinching rulings that widen coverage for defense costs, statutory damages and disgorgement losses, while excess insurers are cheering the Second Circuit for shielding their policies from being triggered early.
June 26, 2013
On June 11, 2013, the New York Court of Appeals, in J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., et al. v. Vigilant Insurance Company, et al., reinstated a declaratory judgment action against D&O Liability insurers, reasoning that an SEC order requiring Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. (Bear Stearns) to pay $160 million in disgorgement did not conclusively establish that the payment was uninsurable.
May 15, 2013
The decision, which ordered the defendants to produce documents and the clerk to unseal papers filed in motion practice, represents a new and troubling broadening of the scope of discovery in bad faith cases.
May 07, 2013
The 2nd Circuit's decision affirmed the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of Saint Vincent’s claims and addressed the pleading standards for allegations of breach of fiduciary duty with respect to management of an ERISA plan.
May 01, 2013
Angelo Savino, chair of the professional liability practice in Global Insurance, published an article in Best's Review addressing the issue of claims having decreased but D&O insurers face a potentially volatile underwriting landscape. To read the complete article click here.
April 23, 2013
Angelo Savino, chair of the professional liability practice in Global Insurance, was quoted in Law 360’s article, “News Corp.’s $139M Deal May Make for Pricier D&O Coverage.” The article by Bibeka Shrestha discusses the record-breaking settlement by News Corp which has its insurers picking up the tab for the $139 million settlement that ends shareholder derivative litigation over its phone hacking scandal, likely sending other carriers scrambling to rethink the pricing and design of their directors and officers policies. Click here to read the full article and Angelo’s comments.
March 20, 2013
In a recent unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has five years from the date when an alleged fraud begins – not from the date when the SEC uncovers the fraud – to bring an action seeking penalties. It is likely this decision will have a large-scale impact, including an impact on D&O insurers, by spurring the SEC to complete its investigations and bring enforcement actions sooner rather than later.
March 08, 2013
In Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (Slip Op. Feb. 27, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority opinion (Ginsburg, J.), affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s ruling that a securities class action plaintiff need not prove materiality of alleged misrepresentations or misleading omissions as a prerequisite to class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. Justice Alito concurred with the majority but added a separate and important note (discussed below). The Court’s decision lowers the bar for investors seeking to obtain class certification, which has significant implications for D&O insurers, companies, their Directors and Officers (Ds and Os), and securities fraud plaintiffs alike. The Court’s ruling in Amgen also settles a split among the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 9th Circuits. Although the ruling is clearly favorable to securities fraud class action plaintiffs, the four concurring and dissenting justices appear willing to entertain arguments over the continued validity of the fraud-on-the-market presumption, which could drastically alter the landscape for securities class actions.
September 13, 2012
Petersen v. Columbia Casualty Company: A Case Study in the Differences Between the Duty to Advance and the Duty to Defend - Global Insurance Alert - On August 21, 2012, in Petersen v. Columbia Casualty Company, et al., No. SACV-12-00183, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna held that a professional liability insurance policy, which provided that the insurer had a duty to advance defense expenses, should not be interpreted under the standards that govern policies containing the broader “duty to defend.”
August 29, 2012
The Broad Scope of Contractual Liability Exclusions in D&O Policies - Global Insurance Alert - On August 17, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in Federal Insurance Co. v. KDW Restructuring & Liquidation Services LLC et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01357, held that Federal Insurance Company does not have a duty to defend or to indemnify its insured, Uni-Marts, LLC, under a D&O policy for claims arising out of Uni-Marts’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions to gas station purchasers.
June 30, 2012
Bank Errors - BEST’S REVIEW - As of early April, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had filed 27 lawsuits against directors and officers of failed banks. In several of these actions, the FDIC also named spouses of some executives, outside professionals and D&O insurers.
June 29, 2012
Exhaustion Implications for Multi-Policy Settlements - Global Insurance Alert - In JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4627 (N.Y. App. Div. June 12, 2012), the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, applying Illinois law, affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of certain upper-level excess insurers, agreeing that the insured failed to prove that certain underlying policies had been properly exhausted.
December 22, 2011
Professional Liability: J.P. Morgan Securities: Ill-Gotten Profits are Not a Prerequisite for Disgorgement - Insurance Coverage Alert! - In December 13, 2011, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, issued a decision in J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance Co., Index No. 600979/09 (N.Y.A.D. 1st Dep’t Dec. 13, 2011), that significantly adds to the jurisprudence regarding what constitutes disgorgement that is uninsurable under a directors and officers liability policy.
October 28, 2011
Eleventh Circuit Rejects Office Depot's Claim for Defense Costs Incurred During Voluntary Compliance with an Informal SEC Investigation - Insurance Coverage Alert! - In an unpublished per curium opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed that Office Depot’s Executive and Organization Liability policy did not cover defense costs incurred in voluntarily responding to an informal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) inquiry, nor costs incurred in conducting an internal investigation and audit triggered by a whistleblower complaint over alleged accounting improprieties. Office Depot, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. et al.,
July 08, 2011
The Applicability of Morrison v. Nab to Foreign-Cubed Claims by the SEC - Insurance Coverage Alert! - On June 10, 2011, Judge Barbara Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in the case SEC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 10-3229 (Goldman Sachs), that applied the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision to claims by the SEC under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Goldman Sachs had previously settled the claims against it for $550 million,
April 11, 2011
Second Circuit Affirms S.D.N.Y. Decision Finding No Coverage Due to "Prior Knowledge" Exclusion in Broker/Dealer Professional Liability Claims-Made Policy - Insurance Coverage Alert! - On November 16, 2010, the 2nd Circuit affirmed a decision by Judge Peter K. Leisure of the Southern District of New York granting the insurer’s (Quanta) motion for summary judgment as to professional liability coverage. See Quanta Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Investors Capital Corp., No. 10-0219, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23594 (2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2010), affirming, No. 06 Civ. 4624 (PKL), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117689 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2009).
April 01, 2011
IMPLICATIONS OF THE GENZYME DECISION: LOSS UNDER A D&O POLICY - PLUS Journal - Recently, in Genzyme Corp. v. Federal Insurance Co., 2010 WL 3991739 (1st Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit construed the definition of loss in a D&O policy and a so-called “bump-up” exclusion that precluded coverage for claims seeking an increase or “bump-up” in the consideration for the company’s securities.
March 30, 2011
On February 17, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Holwell in the Southern District of New York entered an order In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 02-5571 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2011), that dramatically reduced the potential amount of a plaintiff's jury verdict in a securities class action under section 10(b), originally estimated at approximately $9 billion.
March 24, 2011
D&O Liability: Vivendi – The Multi-Billion Dollar Impact of Morrison on Foreign-Cubed Securities Litigation - Insurance Coverage Alert! - On February 17, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Holwell in the Southern District of New York entered an order in In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 02-5571 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2011), that dramatically reduced the potential amount of a plaintiff’s jury verdict in a securities class action under section 10(b), originally estimated at approximately $9 billion.
November 08, 2010
Implications of the Genzyme Decision: Loss Under a D & O Policy - Insurance Coverage Alert! - Recently, in Genzyme Corp. v. Federal Insurance Co., 2010 WL 3991739 (1st Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit construed the definition of loss in a D & O policy and a so-called “bump-up” exclusion that precluded coverage for claims seeking an increase or “bump-up” in the consideration for the company’s securities.
July 20, 2010
National Australia Bank—Not the Last Word on Foreign-Cubed Securities Litigation - Insurance Coverage Alert! - In a recent decision by Justice Antonin Scalia in Morrison v. National Australia Bank (“NAB”) (June 24, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court answered a question with which lower courts have struggled for more than 40 years—whether section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) provides a cause of action to foreign plaintiffs suing foreign and American defendants for misconduct in connection with securities traded on foreign exchanges—so called foreign-cubed litigation.
July 14, 2010
In three decisions issued on June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States limited a favorite tool of prosecutors—the honest services statute—to its ''solid core.'' Justice Ginsburg, delivering the opinion of the Court in Skilling v. U.S., narrowed the Fifth Circuit’s broad interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §1346, which criminalizes ''a scheme or artifice to defraud another of the intangible right of honest services,'' and remanded the case.
June 07, 2010
D & O Insurance: Limiting Attorneys' Fee Awards in Derivative Suits - Insurance Coverage Alert! - On May 6, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement of a derivative action captioned In re Cox Radio, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. Civ. A. 4464-VCP, and ruled on plaintiffs' attorneys' application for a fee award. The court's decision on the fee award may have a material impact on directors and officers ("D&O") insurers' coverage analysis with respect to such awards.