Superior court erred in finding fraudulent transfer claims filed by a bankruptcy litigation trust to be derivative and falling under the definition of a "securities" claim in a corporate insurance policy where such claims only benefitted creditors rather than the company and thus were direct in nature.

Constitutional challenges to audit under state escheat law overruled where there was no showing that state would undertake estimation of escheated property held by entity and where seizure of property owned by entities with foreign last known addresses did not violate the foreign commerce clause.

No insurance coverage was available for costs incurred by a company in connection with a statutory appraisal proceeding, because that action did not constitute a "wrongful act" under the policy.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of insureds because they had an indemnity claim under the plain language of the policies.

An administrative subpoena was not overly broad and was allowed under the state's revised escheat law.