On October 9, 2024, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published best practice recommendations (Guidance) for complying with the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Noting that "[E]very export – every single one – has a related financial transaction,” BIS is providing direction to financial institutions on how best to comply with its regulations so banks can spot red flags and avoid being used to facilitate sanctions violations.

On October 21, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Division of Examinations (“Division”) released its 2025 examination priorities. The examination priorities outline the key risks, examination topics and priorities that the Division intends to focus on in the coming year when conducting examinations and inspections of SEC-registered investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, transfer agents, municipal advisers, securities-based swap dealers, clearing agencies, and self-regulatory organizations.

For fiscal year 2025, in addition to typical areas such as disclosures and governance practices, the Division plans to also examine for compliance with new rules, the use of emerging technologies, and controls intended to protect investor information, records, and assets.

On July 26, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced a substantial $7,452,501 settlement with State Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street”) and its subsidiary, Charles River Systems, Inc. (“Charles River”) related to its potential civil liability for apparent violations of OFAC’s Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions (the “Sanctions”).

On September 30, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued a new General License (“GL”) and updated its Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) and Sectoral Sanctions Identifications (“SSI”) Lists. Earlier in September, OFAC issued two additional GLs, an updated Russia-related Frequently Asked Question (“FAQ”), and a Final Rule.

The UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation on August 20, 2024 published new guidance on its approach to ‘ownership and control’, the intention of which, it says, “is to ensure that sanctions cannot be easily circumvented.”

If a person (which includes an entity) is designated, or a ship is specified, under regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2018, their name will be recorded on the UK Sanctions List (a “Designated Person”). An entity for these purposes includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporated, or any organization, or association or combination of persons. An asset freeze and some financial services restrictions will apply to entities that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a Designated Person. Those entities might not be designated in their own right, so their names might not appear on the consolidated list of Designated Persons. However, those entities are similarly subject to financial sanctions. And determining who qualifies as a Designated Person is set forth in the guidance below. 

In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., et al. 104 Cal.App.5th 1034 (September 5, 2024), the California First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrers of defendants St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) and dismissing without leave to amend a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Fox Paine & Company (“FPC”) against Liberty Mutual and St. Paul for declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith arising out Liberty Mutual’s and St. Paul’s refusal to pay or reimburse defense costs incurred in connection with the defense of an underlying counter-claim filed by business entities consisting of the Paine’s Family Trust, Fox Paine Management III, LLC (FPM III) and FPC (the “Paine Parties”) against FPC, Saul Fox, individually, and derivatively on behalf of FPC and two Fox related entities (the “Fox parties”).

In Lexington Insurance Company v. Smith, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23429 (September 16, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the insurers’ petition for rehearing on the Suquamish Tribe and Port Madison Enterprises’ (collectively, the “Tribe”) motion for summary judgment, which the Ninth Circuit had granted.

Lexington Insurance Company and several other insurance companies (collectively, “Lexington”) contracted with Tribal First (an entity set up to offer insurance for tribes) to offer insurance policies to tribal governments and enterprises. Lexington then issued insurance policies that were to be provided through Tribal First to tribes.  After suspending business operations during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribe submitted insurance claims for lost business and tax revenue and other expenses.  After receiving reservation of rights letters, the Tribe sued Lexington for breach of contract in the Tribe’s court. Lexington moved to dismiss, arguing the tribal court lacked tribal jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.  The lower tribal court denied the motion and the tribal court of appeals affirmed. 

In Tait v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, 103 Cal. App. 5th 271 (June 28, 2024), the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”). In this case, plaintiffs Martin Tait, Jane Tait, and Bry-Mart, LLC (collectively, the “Taits”) purchased a residential property for $1.25 million and Commonwealth issued a title insurance policy for the property. The policy insured the Taits against “actual loss” arising from certain defined covered risks, including someone else having an easement on the property. The policy limited Commonwealth’s liability for an unknown easement to the lesser of the Taits’ “actual loss” or the policy limit of $1.25 million. The policy did not define “actual loss.”

In Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., 144 S. Ct. 1414 (June 6, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In this case, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” under 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b), which allows any “party in interest” to “raise” and “be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.