Directors and officers (D&O) insurance insights 2022 - Allianz ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Directors and officers (D&O)
insurance insights 2022
Boards of management are vulnerable to a litany of business
exposures, any of which could potentially derail the financial
health, continued service and reputation of any company.
Following are five D&O mega trends companies should watch
for and guard against in 2022, according to Allianz Global
Corporate & Specialty (AGCS) financial lines and D&O experts.
Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty
D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
About
AGCS
Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty
(AGCS) is a leading global corporate
1. Uncertain
insurance carrier and a key business
unit of Allianz Group. We provide
risk consultancy, Property‑Casualty
insolvency
insurance solutions and alternative
risk transfer for a wide spectrum of
commercial, corporate and specialty
outlook
risks across 10 dedicated lines
of business. continues to
Our customers are as diverse as
business can be, ranging from Fortune
Global 500 companies to small
concern
businesses, and private individuals.
Among them are not only the world’s
largest consumer brands, tech Many different projections were made during 2020 about
companies and the global aviation the impact Covid-19 would have on the global economy,
and shipping industry, but also particularly with regards to anticipating an increase in
satellite operators or Hollywood film the number of insolvencies. Those predicting a decrease
productions. They all look to AGCS in the number of insolvencies by the end of 2020 were in
for smart answers to their largest the minority, but this is, in fact, what happened. The Euler
and most complex risks in a dynamic, Hermes Global Insolvency Index1 ended 2020 with a -12%
multinational business environment y/y drop, following a steady decline through the year.
and trust us to deliver an outstanding
claims experience. At the end of 2021 the Euler Hermes index is expected to
close at -6% y/y. From a US bankruptcy filing perspective,
Worldwide, AGCS operates with its according to Cornerstone Research2 , in the first half of
own teams in more than 30 countries 2021 43 companies filed for bankruptcy, less than half of
and through the Allianz Group the number of bankruptcies filed in 1H 2020, but slightly
network and partners in over 200 above the 2005-2020 annual average of bankruptcy filings
countries and territories, employing (based on Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 filings for private and
around 4,400 people. As one of the public companies with over $100mn in assets).
largest Property‑ Casualty units of
Allianz Group, we are backed by From a D&O underwriting standpoint, this recent trend
strong and stable financial ratings. on insolvencies could eventually lead underwriters or
In 2020, AGCS generated a total of insurance buyers to expect a relaxing of terms and
€9.3bn gross premium globally. conditions next year compared with what the expectations
were for 2022 a year ago. However, the reality is that large
www.agcs.allianz.com state interventions took place in many countries to support
companies, preventing a liquidity crisis. Therefore the
impact of the phasing out of these measures still remains a
concern for D&O underwriters.
2 1 Allianz Research, Euler Hermes, “Insolvencies: We’ll be back”, October 6, 2021
2 Cornerstone Research “Trends in Large Corporate Bankruptcy and Financial
Distress: Midyear 2021 Update”
D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
Global insolvency index –
quarterly changes y/y in %
15%
10%
10%
7% 8%
5% 6%
1%
0%
-2%
-5%
-10%
-13%
-15% -16%
-18% -19%
-20%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2019 2020 2021
Source: Euler Hermes, Allianz Research
While the first signs of this relaxation in governmental Historically, insolvency is a major cause of D&O claims
supporting measures are already underway around the as insolvency practitioners look to recoup losses from
world, significant uncertainty remains around potential directors. There are many ways that stakeholders could go
new future virus dynamics, vaccination rates, the general after directors following insolvency, such as alleging that
macroeconomic environment and the response of central boards failed to prepare adequately for a pandemic or for
banks, and, equally, what the impact of these factors will prolonged periods of reduced income.
be on capital markets.
At the same time recent bankruptcy cases can remain in
The recent Allianz Research/Euler Hermes published D&O underwriters’ memories for a long time. Prominent
report states that “Our Global Insolvency Index would post examples in 2021 are US bankruptcy filings, such as
a +15% y/y rebound in 2022, after two consecutive years drillship owner Seadrill Limited and retail property owner
of decline (- 6% in 2021 and -12% in 2020), but business Washington Prime Group, Inc. Meanwhile, the near-collapse
insolvencies would still remain below pre-Covid-19 levels in of Chinese property giant Evergrande generated headlines.
a majority of countries (by -4% in average).”
“Insolvency exposures remain a key topic in the D&O space
Mixed trends are expected across the world. In less and underwriters are increasingly looking into forward-
developed markets, such as Africa or Latin America, the looking key performance indicators and predictive
number of insolvencies is expected to increase quicker modeling tools,” says Shanil Williams, Global Head of
compared to more developed economies, such as Financial Lines at AGCS. As part of a broader Allianz data
France, Germany and the US, where the impact of the and expertise sharing collaboration, D&O underwriters
governmental support is expected to last for longer. at AGCS are actively using the Euler Hermes Insolvency
Grade. “This provides a one-year probability of bankruptcy
and is an integral part of the D&O risk assessment at
AGCS,” adds Williams.
3
D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
2. SPACs exposure
grows for D&Os
Although Special Purpose Acquisition SPACs, also known as ‘blank check
Companies (SPACs) have been around companies’, represent a faster track
for decades, 2020 was a breakout to public markets with a less arduous
year. This surge grew into a high- path for companies looking to go
octane investment in early 2021, public. Advantages and conditions
accounting for more than 50% of newly fueling the growth of SPACs over
publicly-listed US companies. During traditional Initial Public Offerings
the first half of 2021, the number (IPOs) include smoother procedures,
of SPAC mergers, both announced less regulatory and process burdens,
and completed, more than doubled shorter timelines to complete a
the full year total of 2020 with 359 merger with target companies (60
SPAC filings, garnering a combined to 90 days versus six to 12 months
US$95bn raised1 . In Q1 2021 alone, between the initial filings and the
there were 298 SPAC filings raising public offering for traditional IPOs),
up to $82.8bn. However, in Q2 2021, low interest rates and an increased
the number plummeted to 61 filings availability of capital sources.
in the US with only $11.9bn raised.
The slowdown is considered mainly So far the SPAC boom has been
a result of pronouncements by the largely concentrated in high-growth
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) industries such as technology,
to increase scrutiny on SPACs, for financial services and healthcare.
example, by issuing new accounting Since 2019, in the US, 82 SPACs have
Offering a rules now classifying SPAC warrants as
liabilities instead of equities.
formed into target companies in
technology2 – far more than in any
new, more It is a different story across the rest
other sector.
efficient route of the world. The growth of SPACs in As the playing field is still flooded with
to public Europe may not match the scale of the
US boom, but there is still a growing
pursuant SPACs and the demand for
targets remains strong, the increased
markets, expectation that it will increase. There
are only limited obstacles presented
momentum of SPAC activity is
expected to remain the same through
SPACs also by EU capital market laws, even
though SPACs in the EU face some
2022 outside of the US. It is also key to
watch the sustainability and longevity
carry a set challenges because of strict company
law requirements. In the Asian
of merger activities over the medium-
to long-term horizon.
of specific financial hub, the market is slowly
gaining momentum with a significant
‘insurance- uptick in companies in China, Hong
relevant’ risks
Kong and Singapore as a new route to
accessing capital markets.
4 1 CB Insights, What is a SPAC? July 14, 2021
2 Katten, 2021 SPAC survey report
D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
SPAC filings and total raised
Q1 2018 to Q2 2021
Total raised $bn Filings
100 300
90 270
80 240
70 210
60 180
50 150
40 120
30 90
As the SPAC market develops, the
20 60
insurance market also changes and 10 30
adapts coverage solutions to provide 0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
0
adequate protection for the key 2018 2019 2020 2021
participants (sponsors, directors and
Source: CB Insights
shareholders) in a SPAC deal.
While being able to use a new
more efficient route to public US SPACs as % of IPOs
markets, SPACs carry a set of by market value and
specific ‘insurance-relevant’ risks,
number of companies
and losses are already reported
to be flowing through to the – Market value – Number of companies
D&O market. “Depending on 70%
the type of insurance for each 60%
stage of their lifecycle, inherent 50%
exposures could potentially 40%
stem from mismanagement, 30%
fraud or intentional and material 20%
misrepresentation, inaccurate or 10%
inadequate financial information or 0%
violations of SEC rules or disclosure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
duties,” explains Lydia Miller, Source: Bloomberg
Global Underwriting and Product
Analyst at AGCS. “In addition, a
failure to finalize the transaction
Industries to experience uptick in
within the two-year period, insider
trading during the time a SPAC goes SPAC activity
public, a wrong selection of a target
to acquire or the lack of adequate 50%
due diligence in the target company 40%
could also come into play.” 30%
20%
Post-merger the risk of the go-forward
company to perform as expected or 10%
failure to comply with the new duties 0%
Technology
entertainment
Financial
services
Healthcare
Business
services
Leisure/
hospitality or
Energy
Industrials and
manufacturing
Real estate
Consumer
Insurance
of being a publicly-listed company
are among the other emerging risks
on the SPACs radar that need to
be considered.
Source: Katten 2021 SPAC survey report
5
D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
3. Market, climate change
and digital issues for financial
services companies
The financial services industry As such, an increasing number of
continues to face multiple challenges financial institutions have already
in terms of risk management. On committed to aligning their lending
the financial side, markets are likely and investing portfolios to this
More and to become more volatile with the
increased risk of asset bubbles and
goal, while management tools that
allow for active measurement of the
more banks inflation rising in different parts of
the world.
exposure are being developed.
and insurers The general assumption is that
Recent natural catastrophe events
such as wildfires in Southern Europe
are expected monetary policies will harden, while
there remains uncertainty regarding
and California and floods in Germany,
the US and China have emphasized
to assign economic recovery levels in view of the importance for regulators to focus
individual rising energy prices and supply chain
disruptions. The impact of China, with
on climate change and the impact on
credit risk (including stress tests).
responsibility its struggling real estate market and
its regulatory interventions in sectors More and more banks and insurers
for overseeing such as technology, should not be
underestimated.
are expected to assign individual
responsibility for overseeing financial
financial At the same time, important
risks arising from climate change,
while investors are paying closer
risks arising international initiatives are underway
to develop more sustainable, resilient
attention to the proper disclosure of
the risk that it poses for the company
from climate and circular economies in response or financial instrument they invest
change
to the challenges posed by climate in, as demonstrated by a number of
change and global warming. recent actions (see column, page 7).
The financial services sector has a Regulatory change to suitability
critical role to play in achieving this rules are on their way to ensure
aim by helping to ensure that capital that investors’ ESG preferences are
flows toward sustainable projects taken into consideration during the
and assets with consideration of investment advice process.
environmental, social and governance
(ESG) factors, according to David
Van den Berghe, Global Head of
Financial Institutions at AGCS.
6
D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
For firms’ senior management
this requires them to maintain an
Pressure
active role in steering the ICT risk increasing
management framework. This
encompasses the assignment of
to disclose
clear roles and responsibilities climate risk
for all ICT-related functions, a
continuous engagement in the Climate change litigation
control of the monitoring of the is beginning to target
ICT risk management, as well as financial institutions. Cases
“Therefore firms will face a number an appropriate allocating of ICT have tended to focus on
of challenges, from obtaining investments and trainings. the nature of investments,
clients’ ESG preferences to reducing although there is a growing
regulatory risk including the risk of All these aforementioned use of litigation seeking to
‘greenwashing’, where companies developments create additional drive behavioral shifts and
make false or misleading ESG claims, challenges for the risk professional. If force disclosure debate.
all of which could impact D&Os,” says ICT risks are not properly managed In November 2020, a case
Van den Berghe. “Businesses should the company may experience service was settled involving a
ensure they have clear processes in disruptions which could result in $57bn superannuation
place for managing and disclosing the increased operating expenses fund in Australia, Rest 2 .
impact to their business of ESG risks resulting from a variety of causes The claimant alleged
such as climate change.” including customer redress, additional Rest’s failure to disclose
consultancy costs, loss of income and and address climate risk
Meanwhile, following the Covid-19 regulatory fines. breached legislation. The
pandemic, digitalization has further fund committed to a raft
accelerated – by as much as seven Brand reputation would also likely of new disclosure and
years according to a McKinsey be affected as well, particularly if the climate change-related
survey1 – and information and company has been targeted by cyber initiatives in response.
communications technology (ICT) criminals as a result, which could In July 2020, a claim 3
plays an indispensable role in the ultimately impact on the company’s lodged in the Federal
operation of the daily functions of stock price. Court of Australia alleged
financial institutions. Digitalization Australian investors trading
covers not only payments, but “AGCS regularly engages in open in Government bonds
also lending, securities clearing dialogues with the banking, insurance would face “material risks”
and settlement, trading, insurance and asset management segments to because of the Australian
underwriting, claims management discuss risk trends and challenges,” Government’s response
and back office operations. says Van den Berghe. “We are to climate change and
investing heavily in our network and this was not disclosed
Finance has not only become largely expertise, both on the underwriting, to investors. This case is
digital, but digitalization has also claims and operations side, so we can ongoing.
deepened interconnections and best respond to customers’ needs and
dependencies within the sector and contribute to a better management of
with third-party infrastructure and risks in a complex environment that
service providers. constantly evolves.”
1 McKinsey & Company, How Covid-19 has pushed companies over the technology tipping point – and
transformed business forever, October 2020
2 Clifford Chance, Climate Change test case settles: $57bn Australian super fund responds to pressure on
climate change policy 7
3 MinterEllisonRuddWatts, 2021 Litigation Forecast – Climate change litigation: New risks for companies
and directors
D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
4. Heightened US
litigation risk for
non-US domiciled
companies
A surge of new lawsuit filings, the recent Among the reasons given in the past by US
openness of certain courts to extending long- courts to dismiss a derivative suit against a
arm jurisdiction, and a possibly record-breaking non-US company was the failure of plaintiffs
settlement announced in October 2021, point to comply with a requirement in the subject
to heightened US litigation risk for directors and company’s home jurisdiction – that the
officers of non-US domiciled companies. plaintiffs first apply for, and be granted, leave
from a local court before pursuing a derivative
In recent years shareholders increasingly have claim. Such requirements typically don’t exist
sought to avail themselves of US courts to bring in the US. However, in a series of decisions over
derivative actions on behalf of non-US domiciled the past four years, courts in New York have
corporations. In particular, since early 2020, a ruled that such requirements are procedural
group of plaintiffs’ firms has brought around rather than substantive.
a dozen derivative lawsuits in New York State
courts on behalf of shareholders of non-US While courts may be required to apply the
companies seeking to hold directors and officers substantive law of the place where a company
legally and financially accountable for various is incorporated when adjudicating the duties
breaches of duty to the corporations they have and liabilities of directors and officers, New
been engaged to serve. York courts have ruled that their ability to
hear a dispute should not be constrained by
While not without precedent, such suits were procedural rules inconsistent with New York
uncommon previously. Even when filed, derivative law and practice. See, for example, Davis v.
suits brought on behalf of non-US companies Scottish Re Grp. Ltd., (2017)1; Mason-Mahon v.
generally met resistance from US courts and were Flint (2018) 2 .
dismissed on jurisdictional and other grounds.
However, certain recent court decisions make
clear that under the right circumstances, US
courts are willing to entertain such lawsuits.
8 1 Justia US Law, Davis v. Scottish Re Group Ltd.
2 Justia US Law, Mason-Mahon v FlintD&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
Litigating in the US, derivative plaintiffs may
obtain advantages not available should they
attempt to bring suit in the company’s home
country, not the least of which is possibly being
the right to bring suit at all. The US permits
The consequences to
contingency fee arrangements for legal expense
but, with limited exception, does not permit the
directors and officers
winning party to recover its litigation expense forced to defend
from the losing party. As a result, the financial
hurdles to bring suit in the US are significantly themselves in derivative
lower than in many other countries. In addition,
US courts (and juries) are considered more litigation before US courts
plaintiff-friendly than courts in many other
jurisdictions around the world.
can be severe
“The consequences to directors and officers This settlement followed the decision of a New
forced to defend themselves in derivative York intermediate court of appeals affirming
litigation before US courts can be severe,” says the rejection by the trial court of jurisdictional
David Ackerman, Global Claims Key Case challenges to bringing the suit in New York.
Management at AGCS. In what may turn out to Of note, the court found that it had personal
be a record-setting settlement for a US derivative jurisdiction over the defendants due to their
lawsuit, in October of this year defendants significant activities in New York, including
agreed to pay a minimum of US$300mn3 to conduct of an IPO of Renren shares on the New
settle litigation brought in New York State court York Stock Exchange and the engagement of New
by shareholders of Renren, a social media York legal and banking advisors for this purpose,
corporation based in China, and incorporated as well as the repeated consent of Renren to
in the Cayman Islands, after allegations of be governed by New York law in regard to
corporate misconduct. contractual matters. See In re Renren, Inc. (2021)4 .
3 Financial Times, US-listed Chinese group Renren settles investor complaint for $300mn, October 10, 2021 9
4 Reid Collins, In re Renren Inc. Derivative Litigation, Index No. 653594/2018D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
5. Increased risk of
shareholder derivative
suits under Caremark
In 1996, in In re Caremark Int’l1 , the Delaware Either of these theories required a “showing that
Chancery Court in the US set the standards for the directors knew they were not discharging
claims against corporate directors for lack of their fiduciary obligations.”, as in Stone v Ritter,
board oversight. 2006. 3, which saw a group of shareholders
bring a derivative suit against AmSouth bank’s
In a derivative action, shareholders of health directors for failure to engage in proper
services company Caremark International oversight of its Bank Secrecy Act and anti-
Inc., alleged that the company’s directors, in money laundering policies and procedures,
neglecting to effect sufficient internal control after it had been fined $50mn for failing to
systems, had breached their duty of care. report suspicious financial activity. Applying the
Caremark standard, the Delaware Chancery
It was because of this, the civil action alleged, Court dismissed the shareholders’ complaint.
that Caremark employees were able to commit
criminal offenses that resulted in the company Very few cases have survived Motions to
having to make reimbursements to various Dismiss Caremark claims; therefore, they have
private and public parties of more than $250mn2 . had a low settlement value. Those that have
survived have settled for increasingly higher
The court determined that boards of directors amounts however. For example, the Wells
have a duty to ensure that the corporation’s Fargo shareholder derivative suit4 , filed in
reporting system is adequate to assure that response to bank employees creating millions
appropriate information comes to the board of unauthorized customer accounts, settled for
in a timely manner. Failure to do so can mean $240mn after denial of the Motion to Dismiss
that individual directors have liability for (based on $2.5bn in alleged loss); the McKesson
corporate failures. derivative litigation5, which alleged the board
had breached its fiduciary duties with respect to
Until recently there was a very high standard oversight of its opioid drug operations, settled
for shareholders to prove that a board had for $175mn after denial of the Motion to Dismiss
breached this duty. They had to either show that: (based on $3.95bn in alleged loss).
1. the directors utterly failed to implement
any reporting or information systems or
controls or:
2. having implemented such a system or
controls, they consciously failed to monitor or
oversee its operations.
1 Case Briefs, In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation
2 Justia US Law, In Re Caremark Intern. Inc. Deriv. Lit.
3 Quimbee, Stone v. Ritter Delaware Supreme Court, 2006 WL 302558 , 911 A.2d 362 (Del. 2006)
4 The D&O Diary, Massive settlement in Wells Fargo bogus account scandal derivative suit, March 3, 2019
10 5 The D&O Diary, McKesson opioid-related derivative suit settles for $175mn, February 6, 2020
6 Lexis Nexis, Marchand v. Barnhill - 212 A.3d 805 (Del. 2019)D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
The very high standard for Caremark claims was Following the denial of the Motion to Dismiss,
apparently lowered in 2019 when the Delaware the Bluebell shareholder derivative suit settled
Supreme Court decided Marchand v. Barnhill6 . for $60mn (based on $453mn in alleged loss).
In this case, shareholders of food company Blue This settlement was 13% of the alleged loss as
Bell brought a derivative claim under Caremark opposed to 4.4% for McKesson and 6.9% for
after a listeria outbreak resulted in the death of Wells Fargo.
three customers, a nationwide recall, a liquidity
crisis and emergency credit facility that diluted “Since the Marchand decision, an increasing
shareholders’ control of the company. number of Caremark claims are surviving
Motions to Dismiss, potentially leading to
The Marchand court focused on the fact that greater exposure for individual corporate
Blue Bell manufactured only one product, ice directors,” says Angela Sivilli, Global
cream, and therefore food safety was mission Practice Group Leader, Commercial
critical to the corporation. Despite this, Blue Bell Management Liability and Financial
had no board committee to address food safety, Institutions, Chief Claims Office at AGCS.
had no regular discussion of safety issues, and “Board members must accordingly re-
apparently did not receive certain negative examine whether there is sufficient Side A
reports about food safety. cover (which covers liabilities incurred by an
individual in their capacity as a director or
officer) in their D&O insurance program.”
11D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022
Market dynamics
the state of the D&O
insurance sector
Billions of dollars of premiums are collected Therefore, the overall market hardening trend
annually for D&O insurance but the profitability has continued through past quarters, with
of the sector has suffered in previous years generally higher premiums, tighter terms and
because of increasing competition, the growing selective deployment of capacity for both
Find out more about number of lawsuits and rising claims frequency primary and excess layers.
the virtual captive and severity. Underwriting results have been
market www.
agcs.allianz.com/ negative in many markets around the world, Global insurance pricing for D&O has previously
news-and-insights/ as event-driven litigation, collective redress showed double-digits increase in all key
expert-risk-
articles/virtual-
developments, regulatory investigations and markets in 2021, according to third party data.
captives.html higher defense costs have taken their toll. However, as the year has progressed it has been
reported that there was some deceleration in
the premium increases compared to the “Covid”
year 2020.
1 Marsh Global Insurance Markets: Pricing increases moderate in second quarter, July 2021
D&O Insurance Structure
The structure of a D&O insurance policy depends on which of three insuring agreements are purchased (ABC policies are
generally chosen, as these are standard form policies for publicly listed companies; for private or non-profit companies,
only AB policies would be useful).
Cover Description Who is the insured? What is at risk?
Side A Protects assets of individual directors and Individual officer His/her personal assets
officers for claims where the company
is not legally or financially able to fund
indemnification
Side B Reimburses public or private company to Company Its corporate assets
the extent that it grants indemnification
and advances legal fees on behalf of
directors/officers
Side C Extends cover for public company (the entity, Company Its corporate assets
not individuals) for securities claims only
12D&O INSURANCE INSIGHTS 2022 Regionally there are some important differences to observe. Financial and professional lines rates increased 25% in the US, driven by D&O liability and cyber pricing, according to Marsh1 , whereas financial and professional lines in the UK saw pricing up by 57%, largely due to D&O. Continental Europe, Latin America and Asia followed by respectively 20%, 22% and 24%. US-listed companies (including Initial Public offerings), as well as pharma, tech, life science and retail organizations are still experiencing considerable rate pressure and retention levels for side B and C coverages. From an insurance-purchasing perspective, capacity levels are still not at the soft market levels seen prior to 2018, despite the fact that a number of new insurers have entered the D&O market. This means there is still an imbalance between supply and demand and many companies would like to purchase more limits than the industry can currently offer. The hard market conditions are prompting more discussion around alternative risk transfer and finance and companies are increasingly exploring solutions such as the utilization of (virtual) captives for the side C portion of the coverage.
Contacts
For more information contact your local Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty Communications team.
Asia Pacific Central and Eastern Europe
Wendy Koh Daniel Aschoff
wendy.koh@allianz.com daniel.aschoff@allianz.com
+65 6395 3796 +49 89 3800 18900
Ibero/LatAm Mediterranean/Africa
Camila Corsini Florence Claret
camila.corsini@allianz.com florence.claret@allianz.com
+55 11 3527 0235 +33 158 858863
North America Lesiba Sethoga
Emil Janssens lesiba.sethoga@allianz.com
emil.janssens@agcs.allianz.com +27 11 214 7948
+1 212 553 1287
UK, Middle East, Nordics Global
Ailsa Sayers Hugo Kidston
ailsa.sayers@allianz.com hugo.kidston@allianz.com
+44 20 3451 3391 +44 203 451 3891
Heidi Polke‑Markmann
heidi.polke@allianz.com
+49 89 3800 14303
For more information contact agcs.communication@allianz.com
Follow Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty on
Twitter @AGCS_Insurance #directorsandofficersinsurance and
LinkedIn
www.agcs.allianz.com
Thank you to Joana Moniz for her contribution to this report.
Disclaimer & Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE. All rights reserved.
The material contained in this publication is designed to provide general information only. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided is accurate, this information is
provided without any representation or guarantee or warranty of any kind about its accuracy and completeness and neither Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE, Allianz Risk Consulting Gmbh,
Allianz Risk Consulting LLC, nor any other company of Allianz Group can be held responsible for any errors or omissions. This publication has been made on the sole initiative of Allianz Global
Corporate & Specialty SE.
All descriptions of services remain subject to the terms and conditions of the service contract, if any. Any risk management duties as laid down in the risk service and/or consulting contracts and/or
insurance contracts, if any, cannot be delegated neither by this document, nor in any other type or form. Some of the information contained herein may be time sensitive. Thus, you should consult
the most recent referenced material. Some of the information given in this publication may not apply to your individual circumstances. Information relating to risk services is intended as a general
description of certain types of risk and services to qualified customers. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE do not assume any liability of any kind whatsoever, resulting from the use, or reliance
upon any information, material or procedure contained in this publication. Any references to third party websites are provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by Allianz
Global Corporate & Specialty SE of the content of such third‑party websites. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE is not responsible for the content of such third‑party sites and does not make
any representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on such third‑party websites. If you decide to access third‑party websites, you do so at your own risk.
Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE
Dieselstr. 8, 85774 Unterfoehring, Munich, Germany
Images: Adobe Stock
All currencies US$ unless specified
December 2021You can also read
