Posted on

The DeepSeek Threat: A Counterintelligence and National Security Concern

deepseek, intelligence, counterintelligence, espionage, counterespionage, export control, spy

Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a transformative force in global economic, technological and military domains. Among the newest threats in the domain of adversarial AI is “DeepSeek,” a China-based generative AI platform. According to the bipartisan House Select Committee on the CCP, DeepSeek poses a serious national security risk to the United States, and I pose a grave counterintelligence one as well. I agree with the Committee’s four primary findings regarding DeepSeek and have included here some corroborating evidence and light analysis of the platform’s broader counterintelligence implications.

I. Data Funnel to the PRC through Military-Linked Infrastructure

DeepSeek funnels Americans’ data to the PRC through backend infrastructure connected to a U.S.-sanctioned Chinese military company. This is consistent with open-source cybersecurity and export control reporting. DeepSeek is affiliated with Beijing DeepSeek Technology Co., which maintains close technical cooperation with state-controlled firms like Tsinghua Tongfang Co., a subsidiary of China Electronics Corporation (CEC), a company sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Defense for its affiliation with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). U.S. officials have long warned that Chinese firms (even ostensibly private ones) are legally required under China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law to support state intelligence activities. Thus, even passive collection of user queries and metadata from American users can be directly routed to China’s military-civil fused architecture. Cloud traffic analysis tools confirm that some of DeepSeek’s endpoints resolve to IP addresses controlled by Alibaba Cloud and Huawei Cloud, two platforms repeatedly identified for surveillance and data harvesting risks.

II. Covert Propaganda Alignment with CCP Objectives

DeepSeek’s second threat involves covert manipulation of search and response results to align with CCP propaganda. Chinese 2021 ‘Regulations on Recommendation Algorithms’ mandates that AI systems uphold “core socialist values.” Content analysis of DeepSeek’s outputs reveals alignment with these mandates. For instance, when queried about events such as the Tiananmen Square massacre or Uyghur internment camps, DeepSeek either deflects, omits content, or offers CCP-aligned narratives. This contrasts with U.S.-based LLMs that provide factual accounts supported by open-source citations. This form of algorithmic censorship mirrors practices deployed by Baidu and Sogou and serves as a soft power tool for narrative control.

III. Theft of U.S. AI Models through Distillation Techniques

The Committee finds that DeepSeek likely used model distillation to unlawfully replicate U.S. LLMs, a postulate supported by emerging AI security analyses. Distillation, a process whereby a smaller model is trained to mimic a larger one, is legal when trained on open data but when done using unauthorized API access or scraping against licensed outputs, it constitutes intellectual property theft. Reports from AI security firm Mithril Analytics suggest that DeepSeek’s model shows pattern duplication, formatting, and semantic behavior strikingly similar to OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and Anthropic’s Claude-1.6 This aligns with China’s broader strategy of intellectual property misappropriation, which the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has labeled a “national policy.”

IV. Use of Prohibited NVIDIA Chips in Defiance of U.S. Export Controls

The fourth finding, that DeepSeek operates on advanced U.S.-made chips which circumvent export restrictions, reflects a broader problem of enforcement challenges in U.S. semiconductor control policy. According to internal supply chain tracking data and reporting from The Information and Reuters, DeepSeek appears to operate on thousands of NVIDIA A100 and H100 GPUs. These high-performance chips were restricted for export to China under the Biden Administration’s 2022 CHIPS Act enforcement measures. Nevertheless, Chinese AI companies have procured these processors through shell companies and resellers in Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE. The massive computing power needed to train and operate a GPT-scale model would be nearly impossible without these restricted components, confirming that DeepSeek benefits from illicitly obtained U.S. hardware.

Counterintelligence Threat of DeepSeek

DeepSeek poses a significant and multifaceted counterintelligence threat to the United States and its allies. The platform’s capacity to collect metadata, behavioral data, and potentially personally identifiable information (PII) from Americans creates an intelligence bonanza for Chinese FIS. Unlike traditional espionage, AI systems like DeepSeek operate invisibly and at scale, accumulating user data that can be used for profiling, influence operations, and further AI training purposes that effectively turn every American interaction into an exploitable data point.

DeepSeek represents a vector for information warfare. By manipulating answers to politically sensitive questions, promoting false equivalency in authoritarian narratives, and suppressing democratic values, the platform operates as a digital emissary of the CCP’s ideological and subversive goals. Such influence is subtle, persistent, and if not countered, capable of reshaping discourse as we have observed within our own political discourse.

The use of stolen U.S. intellectual property to build DeepSeek creates long-term strategic disadvantage. This is not a new peril. Not only does IP theft compromise American innovation, but it enables a hostile foreign power to accelerate its AI capability with limited investment. The widespread use of DeepSeek in academic or research settings could further enable China to monitor cutting-edge developments in Western institutions of higher education, R&D laboratories and to conduct surveillance on American professionals for recruitment by Chinese FIS or its allied FIEs.

Further, the misuse of restricted U.S. technology in DeepSeek is a direct challenge to the U.S. export control regime. The failure to prevent such chips from reaching adversarial AI projects undermines the deterrent effect of these restrictions and signals enforcement vulnerabilities to other hostile actors. This threat is potentially multiplicative as the CCP may allow restricted technology delivery to other state and non-state threat actors.

These grave threats demand a comprehensive counterintelligence and more broadly, national security strategy, one that includes aggressive export control enforcement, increased funding for AI provenance tracking, sanctions against companies that enable illicit procurement, and public awareness campaigns warning users of the risks posed by foreign AI platforms. Data is NOT merely informational. It is strategic. DeepSeek, if left unchecked, could be the spearhead of the CCP’s broader ambition to dominate the next frontier of digital power.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA in Intelligence Studies, Graduate Certificate in Counterintelligence, JD, NICCS/CICS Certified OSINT

Footnotes

U.S. Department of Defense. “DOD Releases List of Additional ‘Communist Chinese Military Companies’ Operating in the U.S.” (2020).

National Intelligence Law of the PRC, Articles 7 and 10 (2017).

Recorded Future. “Chinese Cloud Providers and the Global Data Exfiltration Risk.” (2023).

Cyberspace Administration of China. “Provisions on the Administration of Algorithmic Recommendation for Internet Information Services.” (2021).

Freedom House. “China’s Model of Digital Authoritarianism.” (2022).

Mithril Analytics. “Behavioral Fingerprinting of LLMs: Identifying Unauthorized Model Replication.” (2024).

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. “2023 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights.”

The Information. “Inside China’s Underground Chip Market.” (2024).

Reuters. “Exclusive: China’s AI Firms Bypass U.S. Chip Ban with Grey Market Imports.” (2024).

Posted on

Sfide dî Riinzicurazioni dê Cauzioni, 2025

Riinzicurazioni dê Cauzioni, cauzioni, surety, janus, janus re, janus assurance re, c. constantin poindexter;

La riinzicurazioni dâ classi di cauzioni è na parti spicializzata e abbastanti opaca dû setturi Re. Si pari a li cuntratti tradizziunali di riinzicurazioni, ma li cauzioni ponnu sfidi singulari di sottuscrizzioni, sinistri, risichi reggiulatori e di crèditu, ca ponnu èssiri malcapiti di chiddi ca nun foru mai “crisciuti nta la famigghia di cauzionisti”, e sottovalutati di novi entranti, e ogni tantu puru di riinzicuraturi spirienziati. Mentri chistu nun è nu rissuntu cumplìtu, sti riflissioni sunnu quarchi osservazzioni mia supra li sfidi principali ca l’assicuraturi affrùntanu quannu participanu nta la riinzicurazioni dî cauzioni, cumpresi la natura cumplessa dê obbligazzioni, lu risicu murali nta la sottuscrizzioni primaria, l’esposizzioni a risichi cùdini e li limitazzioni dê mudelli attuariali.

Li cauzioni garantìscinu l’addempiumentu o l’obbligazzioni di nu principali versu nu obligatu (o “beneficiariu”), cu la cauzioni (e lu so riinzicuraturi) ca pigghia u postu dû principali si chistu veni a falliri. Riinzicurari stu risicu significa pigghiàrisi na parti di sti responsabilità cundiziunati dâ sucitati cauzionistica primaria, attraversu cuntratti trattati o facultativi. Anchi si a prima vista pari simìli ad àutri tipi di linîa assicurativa, la riinzicurazioni dî cauzioni porta cu idda sfidi mpurtanti ca nàscinu dâ cumplissità legali, dâ discrivizza dâ sottuscrizzioni e dâ natura stocàstica dû fallimentu. Sti sfidi fannunu la participazzioni na cosa tecnicamente esigenti e finanziarmenti rischiusa si nun è gestuta cu cumpitenza.

I. Cumplessità dâ Sottuscrizzioni e Asimmetria d’Informazzioni

La sottuscrizzioni di cauzioni è diversa dê linîa tradizziunali di assicuranza pircè ogni risicu è custumizzatu. Na cauzioni garantisci l’addempiumentu di n’obbligazzioni legali o cuntrattuali, ca pò essiri di tanti tipi – da cuntratti di custruzzioni a custi di tribunali o cunfurmità di licenzi. Ogni cauzioni è n’istrumentu finanziariu su misura, e quinni accunciari un portafogghiu è difficili.

Li riinzicuraturi dipènnunu assai supra u ghjudìziu dû cauzionista cedianti, ma spissu nun hannu accessu a tuttu u fascìculu di sottuscrizzioni o dî diliggenzi fatti supra u principali. Sta asimmetria porta a na forti prubbrema di risicu murali, spiciarmenti ntê cuntratti di quota-parti unni la cauzioni primaria havi incentivi a fari premi, mentri lu riinzicuraturi si pigghia na parti granni di li pirditi, ca ponnu aviri na “coda” longa. Di cunsiguenza, la disciplina nta la sottuscrizzioni primaria addiventa sia n’affidamentu ma puru un puntu deboli pi lu riinzicuraturi.

II. Gestioni dî Sinistri e Ambiguità Legali

La prucedura dî sinistri nta li cauzioni nun è standardizzata. La cauzioni (e lu riinzicuraturi) nun assicura avvenimenti, ma garantisci obbligazzioni – spesso cu difisi legali e diritti equitativi ca nun si tròvanu nta l’àutri linîi. Chistu pò criari ambiguità supra quannu un sinistru è “succissutu” secunnu la riinzicurazioni. La duttrina dâ “esonirazzioni”, li diritti di surrogazioni e li cundizzioni prima dû pagamentu sunnu custrutti legali ca ponu ritardari o cumplicari la ricunnuscenza dî pirditi.

Li riinzicuraturi ponu truvarisi n’disputi cu li cedenti supra i timpi, l’interpretazzioni dê clausuli e si li sforzi pi mitigari fùru abbastanti. Lu sviluppu dî sinistri è nun lineari: ponu stàri muti pi anni e poi manifestàrisi comu pirditi granni e accumpulati. Nta sti casi, lu riinzicuraturi pò èssiri chiamatu a pagari senza pussibbilità di virificari li fatti.

III. Risicu cùdini e Allocazzioni di Capitale

Li cauzioni ponu èssiri obbligazzioni a longa scadenza, spiciarmenti ntô setturi di custruzzioni, unni li cauzioni di perfurmanza restanu attivi anchi dopu la fini dû pruggettu pi causa di garanzìi, manutenzioni o difetti latenti. Chistu porta a sfidi gestiunali pi lu capitale, pi li riinzicuraturi ca hannu a manteniri riservi pi tanti anni, puru siddu li premi sunnu nicareddi.

Li risichi cùdini nta li cauzioni sunnu a bassa frequenza ma cu granni gravità – spiciarmenti ntê crìsiri ecunòmichi o cu stress supra l’infrastruttura pubblica. Sti risichi nun currispùnnunu a li mudelli catastrofichi tipichi, e quinni li benefici di diversificazzioni sunnu debuli. Pi esempiu, na crìsiri nta li appaltaturi pò causari pirditi granni nta tuttu lu portafogghiu. Li riinzicuraturi senza spirienza ponnu sottuvaluari stu risicu e mancari riservi. Cu li pulìtichi ecunòmichi attuali ntâ ncertizza, li previsioni sunnu scuri. Cautela, vossia!

IV. Frammentazzioni Regulatoria e Giurisdizziunali

La cauzioni è na linìa assai regulata, spiciarmenti ntê Stati Uniti unni ogni statu havi règuli differenti. Ogni obligatu pò vuliri linguaggiu specificu nta i formulari e prucessi di sinistru distinti. Pi li riinzicuraturi ca travàglianu a livellu internazzjonali o nta tanti giurisdizzioni, stari aggiornati supra li règuli è na mpresa granni. La cauzioni primaria, li MGAs e li prudutturi spicializzati sunnu n’aiutu, ma affidàrisi troppu nun è saviu.

In più, lu crèditu pi riinzicurazioni pò èssiri limitatu di li règuli dî autorità assicurativi statali o dî agenzii di rating, ca esìginu granni colletarali o requisiti di sicurizza pi riinzicuraturi non-ammessi. Stu bisognu di colletarali pò manciari li profitti e aggravarisi cu la cumplessità operativa.

V. Limitazzioni dê Mudelli Attuariali

Li pirditi di cauzioni nun ponnu èssiri mudillati facirmenti cu i metudi classici di frequenza e gravità. L’eterogeneità dî obbligazzioni, la rarità dî sinistri e l’esposizzioni a risultati legali estremi fannunu li mudelli statistici menu affidàbbili. Li riinzicuraturi hannu a fidàrisi di valutazzioni qualitativi, la riputazzioni dû sottuscritturi, la forza finanziaria dû obligatu e indicatori macroeconòmichi. Stu fattu porta a na granni dipinnenza supra lu ghjudìziu e rende la gestioni dû portafogghiu MOLTO soggettiva.

Nu riinzicuraturi nun pò prevìdiri comu si sviluppanu li pirditi o si li riservi sunnu giusti cu li medî dû setturi. Li dati dû SFAA aiutanu, e puru li set di dati usati dâ intilliggenza artificiali nascienti, ma nuddu di sti cosi è na soluzzioni sicura.

Participari nta la riinzicurazioni di cauzioni porta cu iddu na seria di sfidi tecnichi, legali e strategichi. A diffirenza dê linîi tradizziunali cu risicu curtugnu, la cauzioni espuni li riinzicuraturi a risichi di longa durata e gravi, ca dipènnunu assai di la qualità dâ sottuscrizzioni primaria, dî sfumaturi legali e dî tensiuni ecunòmichi. Sti sfidi sunnu aggravati di dati incompleti, frammentazzioni regulatoria e limitazzioni di mudellizzazioni. Pi travagghiari cu successu nta stu nicchiu ci voli non sulu forza finanziaria, ma puru spirienza legali supra li cauzioni, capacità spicializzata di sottuscrizzioni, e na forti alliniata d’interessi cu li cedenti. Mentri pò èssiri prufittèvuli, la riinzicurazioni di cauzioni nun è pi generalisti né pi cu nun voli mpignàrisi a spirienza a longa scadenza.

La cunclusioni: si lu Re nun è nu cauzionista spirienziatu, megghiu ca si ferma e pensa bonu.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, ARe, ASLI, AFSB

Posted on

Surety Bond Underwriters and Challenges with Federally Recognized Tribes

Surety and Tribal Sovereign Immunity, surety, surety bond, surety bonds, surety company, c. constantin poindexter, surety one, suretyone.com

Surety bond underwriters play a critical role in ensuring the performance and financial integrity of contractors, especially in public and private construction projects. When these projects involve federally recognized Indian tribes, underwriters face unique legal challenges due to the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. Enforcing general indemnity agreements (GIAs), subpoenas, judgments and other judicial instruments is practically unfeasible with tribal entities due to this immunity. In a state or federal suit that requires evidence production and/or testimony from a tribal official is likewise nearly impossible. Drawing insights from a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals case, In the Matter of the Welfare of J.A.D., Nos. A24-0317, A24-0319 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2024), surety underwriters are again cautioned about tribal rights and the challenge that it presents.

Understanding Tribal Sovereign Immunity

Tribal sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine recognizing that federally recognized Indian tribes possess inherent sovereignty and are generally immune from lawsuits unless they have expressly waived this immunity or Congress has unequivocally abrogated it. This immunity extends to both governmental and commercial activities of the tribe, regardless of whether they occur on or off tribal lands.

For surety bond underwriters, this means that without a clear and explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, enforcing a GIA or any other compulsory order against a tribal entity in state or federal court is typically not possible. Even when a waiver exists, its validity and enforceability can be subject to scrutiny, particularly concerning the authority of the individual who executed the waiver on behalf of the tribe.

Case Study: In the Matter of the Welfare of J.A.D.

The case of In the Matter of the Welfare of J.A.D. illustrates the practical implications of tribal sovereign immunity. In this case, the Lower Sioux Indian Community challenged subpoenas issued to its social workers in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, asserting sovereign immunity. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, recognizing the tribe’s immunity and emphasizing the necessity of obtaining a valid waiver before compelling tribal entities or their employees to participate in legal proceedings. This case underscores the importance for surety bond underwriters to ensure that any agreements involving tribal entities include a valid and enforceable waiver of sovereign immunity, particularly when the performance of the bond may involve interactions with tribal employees or assets.

Securing Valid Waivers of Sovereign Immunity

To mitigate the risks associated with tribal sovereign immunity, surety bond underwriters should consider the following best practices:

• Explicit Waiver Language: The waiver must be clear, specific, and unequivocal. It should explicitly state that the tribe waives its sovereign immunity concerning disputes arising from the bond agreement.

• Authorized Signatories: Verify that the individual signing the waiver has the authority to bind the tribe. This often requires reviewing the tribe’s constitution or governing documents to confirm the delegation of authority.

• Scope of Waiver: Ensure that the waiver covers all aspects of the agreement, including dispute resolution mechanisms, enforcement of judgments, and applicable jurisdictions.

• Choice of Law and Forum: The agreement should specify the governing law and the forum for dispute resolution. This clarity helps prevent jurisdictional disputes and ensures that any legal proceedings occur in a mutually agreed-upon venue.

• Partial Waivers: In some cases, tribes may agree to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, applicable only to specific aspects of the agreement or limited to certain forums. While not as comprehensive as a full waiver, a partial waiver can still provide a pathway for enforcement, provided it is clearly defined and agreed upon.

Challenges in Enforcing Indemnity Agreements

Even with a waiver in place, enforcing a GIA against a tribal entity can be complex. Tribes may assert that the waiver is invalid due to procedural deficiencies or lack of proper authority. Additionally, courts may scrutinize the waiver’s language and the circumstances under which it was executed to determine its enforceability. Further, enforcing a judgment against tribal assets can yield a big “zero”. Tribes may argue that certain assets are protected or that enforcement would infringe upon their sovereignty. These challenges necessitate careful drafting of indemnity agreements and a thorough understanding of tribal laws and governance structures.

Conclusion

Tribal sovereign immunity presents significant barriers to surety companies that seek to secure and enforce indemnity agreements and even the simple subpoena of a protected member within federally recognized tribal zones. The ‘Welfare of J.A.D.’ case exemplifies the legal complexities involved when tribal entities assert their immunity in legal proceedings. To navigate these challenges, underwriters must ensure that indemnity agreements include clear and enforceable waivers of sovereign immunity, executed by authorized tribal representatives, and encompassing all necessary legal provisions. By adopting these best practices, sureties can better manage the risks associated with bonding projects involving tribal entities and dealing with principals that interact with tribal nations to the degree that their participation in court proceedings might be required.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, AFSB, ASLI, ARe

Posted on

Customs Bond Sufficiency Amid Rising Tariffs: Implications for Customs Sureties

U.S. customs bond, customs bond, CBP, surety bond, surety bonds, surety one, suretyone.com, c. constantin poindexter;

The escalation of tariffs will likely impact the sufficiency of customs bonds in a significant way, posing challenges for importers and surety companies alike. I am going to offer for your thought a few of the implications of rising tariffs on customs bond sufficiency, pull in some historical instances where tariffs adversely affected sureties, and “lightly” analyze cases where courts or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have obligated sureties to pay amounts exceeding the penal sum of the bond. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for stakeholders navigating the complexities of international trade and customs bond compliance. For you surety gurus some of this will not be new, more specifically the brief discussion of “things surety”, however, the following is for the consumption of parties that aren’t familiar with our playground.

Customs bonds are financial assurance mechanisms that importers file in order to comply with U.S. customs regulations, including the payment of duties, taxes, and fees. The penal sum of a bond represents the maximum amount a surety is liable for in the event of a default. The bond amount appearing on the face of the bond form is presumptively the “severity” of the exposure, and anti-stacking language informs the “frequency”, both essential benchmarks for assessing bondability. The imposition of a significant tariff regime can strain these bonds, leading to situations where the bond’s penal sum may be insufficient to cover the heightened duties. Thus, onerous treatment by CBP will expose sureties to financial risks that we are not prepared for.

Impact of Rising Tariffs on Customs Bond Sufficiency

The imposition of additional tariffs increases the duties owed on imported goods, which can quickly exhaust the penal sum of existing customs bonds. Per U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), if a bond is deemed insufficient, importers are required to obtain a larger bond to continue importing goods into the United States. Failure to do so can result in painful delays or simply denial of entry. If a tariff structure is exorbitant, the increased financial burden on importers will affect sureties. We are going to see higher claims and potential losses as importers default on their obligations. While we might hedge some of this risk by regular assessment of bond sufficiency, a volatile trade environment characterized by fluctuating tariffs or tariffs fixed at extreme rates will likely put importers out of business. Indemnity from an insolvent entity is worthless..

Historical Context: Tariffs and Their Impact on Sureties

Historically, periods of high tariffs in the United States have posed challenges for customs bond sureties. The media references “Smoot Hawley” whenever the tariff subject arises. Their concerns are instructive both the their constituencies and to our sector. During the implementation of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, the increased duties led to a brutal decline in international trade. This decline adversely affected importers’ ability to fulfill their financial obligations, thereby increasing the risk exposure for sureties. The Ford Motor Company presents a good case sample. Ford suddenly faced duty increases of over forty percent on key parts when tariffs were imposed (per its own archives), which posed a very real risk to Ford that it might default on duty payments. This exposed Ford’s customs bond surety to higher claim risk under continuous bonds, as the penal sum could have been quickly exhausted by large, high-duty shipments. It is hard to include figures to memorialize the peril that faced Ford (and other mega-importers) and even more difficult to review documentation of individual bond claims from that era because archival material is scarce. What we DO observe is the spike in customs litigation and trade payment defaults during the tariff period which is well documented by U.S. Treasury reports and in economic studies of the period.

Similarly, the Dingley Act of 1897, which imposed high tariffs to protect domestic industries, resulted in increased costs for importers and, by extension, greater liabilities for sureties. These historical instances highlight the cyclical nature of trade protectionism and its implications for customs bond sufficiency. Unreasonable (or in some cases even “reasonable”) tariff regimes are a vestige of an era to which we should avoid a return

Legal Precedents: Sureties Obligated Beyond Penal Sum

In certain cases, courts and CBP have held sureties liable for amounts exceeding the penal sum of the bond. One notable case is Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. United States, where the Court of International Trade addressed the obligations of a surety under multiple single-entry bonds. The court upheld CBP’s demands for payment, emphasizing the surety’s responsibility to cover duties owed by the importer, even when the total exceeded the penal sum of individual bonds.

Further, in United States v. International Fidelity Insurance Co., surety paid a substantial amount to settle the government’s claims related to unpaid duties. The court’s decision reinforced the principle that sureties could be held accountable for the full extent of the importer’s liabilities, highlighting the potential for exposure beyond the initial bond amount. Would immediate settlement on notice have made a difference? Perhaps, however, the uncertainty of how the current tariff game will play out and the unpredictability of the current administration’s trade policies leave quite a bit to gamble.

Strategies for Managing Bond Sufficiency Amid Tariff Increases

To mitigate the risks associated with rising tariffs, importers and sureties should consider the following strategies:

Regular Assessment of Bond Sufficiency: Continuously monitor import volumes and the impact of tariff changes to ensure that bond amounts remain adequate.

Collaboration with Customs Brokers: Move closer to customs brokers to stay informed about regulatory changes and to discuss the likelihood of a spike in unliquidated exposures that will drive up bond amounts.

Engagement with Legal Counsel: Seek legal advice to understand the implications of tariff increases and to develop strategies for compliance and risk management. Sureties can and should offer this to their principals.

Diversification of Supply Chains: While diversifying sourcing is a strategy and measure taken by importers, not sureties, to mitigate the impact of tariffs on specific goods or countries, surety companies should understand the impact on the importer’s financial health and continuity.

The resurgence of protectionist trade policies and the resulting increase in tariffs have significant implications for customs bond sufficiency. Historical precedents and pertinent legal cases demonstrate the possibility that surety companies face liabilities exceeding the penal sum of customs bonds. Proactive assessment and strategic management are essential for sureties as is open communication with Activity 1 principals to assist their navigation of newly imposed complexities of international trade.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, AFSB, ASLI, ARe

References

Crowe LLP. (2025). Bond Sufficiency Amid Rising Tariffs. Retrieved from https://www.crowe.com/insights/tax-news-highlights/bond-sufficiency-amid-rising-tariffs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (n.d.). CBP Bonds. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-I/part-113

Court of International Trade. (n.d.). Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. United States. Retrieved from https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/17-103.pdf

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Dingley Act. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingley_Act

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law. (2019). A Brief History of Tariffs in the United States and the Dangers of their Use Today. Retrieved from https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2019/03/17/a-brief-history-of-tariffs-in-the-united-states-and-the-dangers-of-their-use-today/

Posted on

Desafíos que Enfrentan las Compañías Afianzadoras: La Perspectiva de un Fiador

surety, surety bond, surety bonds, fianza, fianzas, caución, cauciones, c. constantin poindexter;

El sector de fianzas (o para los españoles “caución”), un nicho vital dentro del panorama más amplio de los servicios financieros y de seguros, se enfrenta actualmente a desafíos transformadores que amenazan los modelos tradicionales de suscripción, la rentabilidad y la sostenibilidad a largo plazo. Cinco temas dominantes emergen como las cuestiones más apremiantes: el aumento del riesgo de impago en una economía volátil, un panorama regulatorio cambiante, la presión para innovar en la suscripción a pesar de los sistemas heredados, la restricción en la disponibilidad de reaseguro, y la imperiosa necesidad de planificación del talento y sucesión en toda la industria. A continuación se presentan estos asuntos, ejemplos ilustrativos y algunas ideas sobre cómo las compañías de fianzas responder estratégicamente podrían.

Aumento del Riesgo de Incumplimiento en una Economía Volátil

La fianza de cumplimiento contractual representa una porción significativamente mayor de los ingresos por primas. El riesgo de incumplimiento por parte de contratistas ha crecido considerablemente en los últimos años debido a la volatilidad económica, las presiones inflacionarias y el acceso limitado al crédito. Los nuevos regímenes arancelarios probablemente agravarán estas presiones, aunque ese tema se abordará mejor más adelante este año. Un caso ilustrativo involucra a un contratista general de Carolina del Norte que se declaró en bancarrota bajo el Capítulo 7 durante la construcción de un instituto de enseñanza secundaria. La compañía de fianzas tuvo que intervenir, presentar un contratista sustituto y responder a más de tres millones de dólares en reclamaciones sobre la fianza de pago (Surety & Fidelity Association of America [SFAA], 2022). Este ejemplo subraya la exposición financiera cada vez mayor a la que se enfrentan las aseguradoras de fianzas en condiciones económicas deterioradas, y destaca la importancia de una suscripción rigurosa.

Panorama Regulatorio Cambiante

Las nuevas normativas y las que están por venir están reformando el perfil de riesgo y los requisitos de estructura de capital de las operaciones de fianzas. Uno de los desarrollos más significativos es la implementación de Basilea IV, un marco regulatorio global que exigirá a las instituciones financieras vinculadas al sector de fianzas incrementar sus reservas de capital. Este cambio, efectivo desde julio de 2025, puede restringir la liquidez y limitar la capacidad de las compañías de fianzas para suscribir nuevos negocios sin ajustar su apetito de riesgo (Brown & Brown, 2024). Los activos ponderados por riesgo calculados mediante modelos internos no podrán situarse por debajo del 72,5 %. Si bien esto afectará ostensiblemente a las entidades bancarias del sector, sirve de advertencia para las aseguradoras de fianzas que podrían enfrentarse a cambios en los requisitos de capital de solvencia (RBC) que los reguladores decidan implementar. En definitiva, las aseguradoras deberán ser más ágiles en la gestión de la eficiencia de capital y el riesgo de cumplimiento.

Innovación en la Suscripción frente a Sistemas Heredados

La industria está bajo una presión creciente para adoptar plataformas avanzadas de suscripción, análisis de datos e inteligencia artificial. Muchas compañías de fianzas siguen dependiendo de infraestructuras informáticas heredadas y conjuntos de datos no estructurados (especialmente históricos de siniestralidad por clase). La emisión por parte de Allianz Trade de una fianza de cumplimiento de sesenta millones de dólares para las operaciones de una multinacional en Brasil es un ejemplo claro de cómo las capacidades modernas de suscripción, las asociaciones internacionales y la agilidad legal se están convirtiendo en esenciales (Allianz Trade, 2024). Este caso muestra que las firmas con sistemas obsoletos pueden tener dificultades para competir por negocios complejos e internacionales, lo que resalta la necesidad urgente de transformación digital. Se habla mucho de la “suscripción mejorada”. El uso de herramientas avanzadas (IA), tecnologías y metodologías analíticas para mejorar la evaluación del riesgo, la solvencia crediticia y la viabilidad de proyectos es imperativo. El análisis predictivo es comúnmente identificado como (para desplegar una expresión común estadounidense) el “elefante en la habitación”, sin embargo, los modelos de aprendizaje automático y las herramientas estadísticas pueden no ser suficientes. La fianza contractual es un negocio de “relaciones”, por lo que una suscripción puramente electrónica no será una panacea.

Restricciones en el Reaseguro

Las compañías de fianzas se enfrentan a un endurecimiento de los mercados de reaseguro, particularmente para obligaciones con altas penalizaciones y especialmente en jurisdicciones con entornos litigiosos. La imposibilidad de Donald Trump de obtener una fianza de apelación de 464 millones de dólares en un caso de fraude civil, a pesar de haber solicitado cobertura a más de treinta aseguradoras (Stempel & Pierson, 2024), es un claro ejemplo. La reticencia colectiva de la industria revela, en parte, un creciente conservadurismo en el sector del reaseguro y las limitaciones prácticas a las que se enfrentan clientes que, en teoría, son altamente solventes y con buen crédito. En el sector de fianzas comprendemos bien la obligación de supersedeas y exigimos colateral en consecuencia, sin embargo, los reaseguradores se rigen por fundamentos de suscripción cedente que no siempre reflejan “lo que sabemos”. Es imperativo que las compañías de fianzas reevalúen sus relaciones contractuales y estructuras de reaseguro.

Planificación del Talento y la Sucesión

La reserva de talento de la industria de fianzas está envejeciendo. La escasez de suscriptores especializados y de liderazgo corporativo senior amenaza la capacidad a largo plazo. Un estudio reciente reveló que las pequeñas y medianas empresas encuentran dificultades para obtener fianzas debido a la falta de suscriptores con conocimientos que comprendan sus realidades operativas (Muriithi et al., 2022). A medida que los profesionales experimentados se jubilan, el sector debe invertir en programas de reclutamiento, mentoría y formación para desarrollar la próxima generación de especialistas en suscripción y gestión de siniestros. Las grandes empresas en marcha no son inmunes. La Harvard Business Review ofrece un estudio de caso sobre un proceso de sucesión exitoso (“El alto coste de una mala planificación de sucesión”), aunque fácilmente podría haber resultado desfavorable. Las observaciones de los autores merecen una consideración seria.

Conclusión

Cada uno de estos cinco desafíos —la volatilidad económica, la transformación regulatoria, el rezago digital, la presión sobre el reaseguro y la escasez de talento— representa actualmente un punto de inflexión crítico para las compañías de fianzas. Abordar estas preocupaciones requiere inversión estratégica, defensa normativa, integración tecnológica y un fuerte enfoque en el desarrollo del capital humano. Las firmas que triunfen serán aquellas capaces de mantener la disciplina en la gestión del riesgo, mientras abrazan la innovación. De lo contrario, no lograremos ni crecimiento ni rentabilidad aceptable. La clave está en enfocarse, replantear estrategias y redoblar esfuerzos en agilidad, en lo que parece ser un panorama de riesgos volátil y en rápida evolución.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, AFSB, ASLI, ARe

Referencias

Allianz Trade. (2024). Surety bond case study: Performance bond for a Brazilian project. Recuperado de https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_US/surety-bonds/surety-bonds-case-study.html

Brown & Brown. (2024). Surety Q3 2024 Market Trends. Recuperado de https://www.bbrown.com/us/insight/two-minute-takeaway-surety-q3-2024-market-trends

Muriithi, S., Louw, L., & Radloff, S. E. (2022). SMEs and the Surety Bonding Market: Exploring Underwriter Challenges. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(3), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4447

Stempel, J., & Pierson, R. (2024, 18 de marzo). Trump has failed to get appeal bond for $454 million civil fraud judgment. Reuters. Recuperado de https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-has-failed-get-appeal-bond-454-mln-civil-fraud-judgment-lawyers-say-2024-03-18

Surety & Fidelity Association of America. (2022). Surety Case Study: North Carolina Public Project Completion. Recuperado de https://suretyinfo.org/?wpfb_dl=150

Gregory Nagel y Carrie Green, “The High Cost of Poor Succession Planning”, HBR, mayo-junio 2021, https://hbr.org/2021/05/the-high-cost-of-poor-succession-planning

Posted on

Challenges Facing Surety Companies: A Bondsman’s Perspective

surety, surety bond, surety bonds, c. constantin poindexter, reinsurer, reinsurance

The surety industry, a vital niche within the broader insurance and financial services landscape, is currently facing transformative challenges that threaten traditional underwriting models, profitability and long-term sustainability. While by no means exhaustive, I’d like to share five dominant themes that from my perspective emerge as most pressing issues: rising default risk in a volatile economy, a shifting regulatory landscape, the pressure to innovate underwriting practices while constrained by legacy systems, tightening reinsurance availability, and the industry-wide imperative of talent and succession planning. The following are these issues, case examples and some insight into how surety companies might strategically respond.nd.

Rising Default Risk in a Volatile Economy

Contract surety bonding represents a significantly larger portion of premium revenues. The risk of contractor default has grown sharply in recent years due to economic volatility, inflationary pressures, and constrained access to credit. New tariff regimes will likely exacerbate these pressures however that is a topic better addressed later in the year. An illustrative case involves a North Carolina general contractor who declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy during the construction of a high school. The surety on the project was compelled to intervene, tender a replacement contractor, and respond to over three million dollars in payment bond claims (Surety & Fidelity Association of America [SFAA], 2022). This example underscores the heightened financial exposure that sureties face as economic conditions deteriorate and underscores the importance of rigorous underwriting.

Shifting Regulatory Landscape

New and impending regulations are reshaping the risk profile and capital structure requirements of surety operations. One of the most significant developments is the implementation of Basel IV, a global regulatory framework that will require surety-affiliated financial institutions to increase capital reserves. This shift, effective July 2025, may restrict liquidity and limit the ability of sureties to write new business without adjusting their risk appetites (Brown & Brown, 2024). RWAs calculated using internal models will not be allowed to fall below 72.5%. While ostensibly this will affect banking institutions involved in the sector, it is instructive to surety companies that may face RBC changes that regulators may choose to implement. Bottom line, surety companies will need to be more agile in managing capital efficiency and compliance risk.

Underwriting Innovation vs. Legacy Systems

The industry is under increasing pressure to adopt advanced underwriting platforms, data analytics, and artificial intelligence. Many surety carriers continue to rely on legacy IT infrastructure and unformatted data sets (especially class loss histories). Allianz Trade’s issuance of a sixty million dollar performance bond for a multinational’s operations in Brazil is a prime example of how modern underwriting capabilities, international partnerships, and legal agility are becoming essential (Allianz Trade, 2024). This case illustrates that firms with outdated systems may struggle to compete for complex and international business, highlighting the urgent need for digital transformation. There is big talk about “Enhanced Underwriting”. The use of advanced tools (A.I.), technologies, and analytical methodologies to improve the evaluation of risk, creditworthiness, and project viability are imperative. Predictive analysis is commonly identified as the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, however, machine learning models and statistical tools may not be sufficient. Contract surety is a “relationship” business so e-driven underwriting is not going to be a panacea.

Reinsurance Tightening

Surety companies are facing tightening reinsurance markets, particularly for high bond-penalty obligations and more especially in jurisdictions with litigious environments. Donald Trump’s inability to obtain a $464 million appeal bond in a civil fraud case, despite soliciting over thirty sureties (Stempel & Pierson, 2024) is a case in point. The industry’s collective reluctance reveals in part a growing conservatism in the reinsurance sector and the practical limitations faced by clients that might be considered highly creditworthy and solvent. We in the surety sector know the supersedeas obligation and collateralize accordingly, however, reinsurers stand on cessionary underwriting fundamentals that do not necessarily reflect “what we know”. The need for sureties to reassess their treaty relationships and reinsurance structures is imperative.

Talent and Succession Planning

The surety industry’s talent pool is aging. A shortage of specialized underwriters and senior corporate leadership threaten long-term capacity. A recent study found that small and medium-sized businesses frequently encounter difficulties obtaining surety bonds due to the lack of knowledgeable underwriters who understand their operational realities (Muriithi et al., 2022). As experienced professionals retire, the industry must invest in recruitment, mentorship, and education programs to develop the next generation of underwriting and claims professionals. Large ongoing concerns are not immune. The Harvard Business Review offers a case study of succession that worked out well (“The High Cost of Poor Succession Planning”) however, it could easily have gone the other way. The authors’ observations deserve serious consideration.

Conclusion

Each of these five challenges; economic volatility, regulatory transformation, digital lag, reinsurance pressure, and talent scarcity, represents a critical pivot point for surety companies, currently. Addressing these concerns requires strategic investment, policy advocacy, technology integration, and a strong emphasis on human capital development. Firms that succeed will be those that can stick to underwriting discipline in risk management but simultaneously embrace innovation, or we will not enjoy growth nor acceptable profitability. The point here is focus, reframing and doubling-down on agility in what appears to be a volatile and rapidly shifting risk landscape.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, AFSB, ASLI, ARe

References

Allianz Trade. (2024). Surety bond case study: Performance bond for a Brazilian project. Retrieved from https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_US/surety-bonds/surety-bonds-case-study.html

Brown & Brown. (2024). Surety Q3 2024 Market Trends. Retrieved from https://www.bbrown.com/us/insight/two-minute-takeaway-surety-q3-2024-market-trends

Muriithi, S., Louw, L., & Radloff, S. E. (2022). SMEs and the Surety Bonding Market: Exploring Underwriter Challenges. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(3), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4447

Stempel, J., & Pierson, R. (2024, March 18). Trump has failed to get appeal bond for $454 million civil fraud judgment. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-has-failed-get-appeal-bond-454-mln-civil-fraud-judgment-lawyers-say-2024-03-18

Surety & Fidelity Association of America. (2022). Surety Case Study: North Carolina Public Project Completion. Retrieved from https://suretyinfo.org/?wpfb_dl=150

Gregory Nagel and Carrie Green, “The High Cost of Poor Succession Planning”, HBR, May-June 2021, https://hbr.org/2021/05/the-high-cost-of-poor-succession-planning

Posted on

La Medida Cautelar y la Fianza

medida cautelar, injunction, fianza, fianzas, fianza judicial, fianza de tribunal, surety one, suretyone.com, c. constantin poindexter

Una orden judicial de “injuction” (medida cautelar) es un recurso judicial poderoso que puede afectar significativamente los derechos y la conducta de las partes durante un litigio. El mecanismo de la fianza para medidas cautelares es un componente fundamental del proceso de reparación equitativa, ya que ofrece una garantía financiera especial a las partes afectadas en caso de que posteriormente se determine que la medida cautelar fue concedida de manera improcedente. En este escrito, exploro la base legal y la aplicación de las fianzas en medidas cautelares, con un breve análisis comparativo de los estatutos y prácticas relevantes en el sistema judicial federal y en los estados de California, Illinois y Carolina del Norte.

Por supuesto, cada estado cuenta con su propio régimen legal respecto a este tipo de fianza, por lo que no pretendo realizar una comparación exhaustiva, sino más bien observar algunas jurisdicciones en las que se emiten MUCHAS de estas fianzas y donde también existe jurisprudencia relevante. Evaluaré algunas similitudes y divergencias en el lenguaje legal, la interpretación judicial y la aplicación procesal, destacando las implicaciones para los litigantes, los tribunales y las compañías de fianzas.

Introducción

Las medidas cautelares son un componente central de los remedios equitativos en la jurisprudencia estadounidense, diseñadas para mantener el statu quo o prevenir daños irreparables mientras se resuelve el litigio de fondo. No obstante, debido a su potencial carácter disruptivo, los tribunales suelen condicionar la concesión de estas medidas al otorgamiento de una fianza, conocida como “fianza de medida cautelar” o “garantía judicial”. Este mecanismo cumple una función esencial en el equilibrio de intereses de justicia y en la prevención del abuso de las medidas equitativas. Las jurisdicciones federales y estatales han adoptado diversos marcos normativos y procesales para este tipo de fianzas, reflejando diferentes consideraciones de política pública y filosofías judiciales.

Estatuto federal sobre fianzas en medidas cautelares

En el ámbito federal, las fianzas están reguladas por la Regla 65(c) de las Reglas Federales de Procedimiento Civil, la cual dispone:

“El tribunal podrá emitir una medida cautelar preliminar o una orden de restricción temporal únicamente si el solicitante otorga una garantía en la cantidad que el tribunal considere apropiada para cubrir los costos y daños sufridos por cualquier parte que resulte haber sido indebidamente restringida o afectada.”

Esta regla deja a discreción del tribunal la determinación del monto de la fianza, aunque su exigencia es obligatoria salvo en circunstancias excepcionales. El propósito de la Regla 65(c) es asegurar que la parte afectada pueda recuperar daños si se determina que la medida no debió haberse emitido. Por lo tanto, la fianza funciona como una limitación de responsabilidad: los daños por una medida indebida generalmente son recuperables solo hasta el monto de la fianza. (Véase Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)).

Los tribunales tienen discreción para establecer el monto de la fianza, y las cortes de apelación normalmente respetan la decisión del tribunal de primera instancia salvo que constituya un abuso de dicha discreción. En Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., el Distrito Norte de California exigió a Apple una fianza de $95.6 millones para emitir una medida cautelar preliminar, ejemplificando lo que está en juego.

Estatuto de California sobre fianzas en medidas cautelares

El régimen legal de California está codificado en el Código de Procedimiento Civil de California, §§ 529–532. El artículo 529 establece:

“Al conceder una medida cautelar, el tribunal o juez debe exigir una garantía por parte del solicitante, con o sin fiadores, en la suma que el tribunal o juez determine…”

El estatuto establece que la fianza garantiza el pago de daños a la parte restringida si el tribunal determina que la medida fue improcedente. Al igual que la norma federal, la ley de California exige la fianza como condición previa para emitir una medida cautelar, pero permite mayor flexibilidad respecto a los requisitos de fianza y fiador.

Un aspecto destacado de la ley californiana es su especificidad en cuanto a los daños recuperables a través de la fianza, incluyendo honorarios legales y daños consecuenciales, siempre que la medida haya sido improcedente. El artículo 534 también permite suspender una medida cautelar si la fianza es insuficiente o mal ejecutada.

Los tribunales de California también han interpretado la ley para permitir reclamaciones más allá del monto de la fianza bajo ciertas teorías equitativas, aunque esta interpretación sigue siendo controvertida. En White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (2003), la Corte Suprema de California permitió reclamos por daños contra el Estado, pese a la existencia de inmunidades legales.

Estatuto de Illinois sobre fianzas en medidas cautelares

En Illinois, los requisitos están regulados por el artículo 735 ILCS 5/11-103 (Código de Procedimiento Civil), el cual establece:

“Ninguna medida cautelar preliminar u orden de restricción temporal podrá emitirse sino mediante la presentación de una garantía por parte del solicitante, en la suma que el tribunal estime adecuada, para el pago de los costos y daños que puedan haber sido incurridos o sufridos por cualquier parte que resulte haber sido indebidamente afectada…”

Los tribunales de Illinois mantienen una visión relativamente estricta de esta exigencia. La falta de presentación de la fianza puede invalidar la medida cautelar, y la recuperación de daños se limita generalmente al monto indicado, salvo que la fianza haya sido obtenida fraudulentamente.

Un precedente importante es In re Marriage of Newton, 2011 IL App (1st) 090683, donde el tribunal de apelaciones sostuvo que los daños deben ser claramente probados y estar directamente vinculados a la emisión de la medida. La ley permite que una compañía afianzadora actúe como fiador, pero la fianza debe ser presentada al mismo tiempo que se emite la medida cautelar. A diferencia de las cortes federales, los tribunales de Illinois son más estrictos en cuanto al cumplimiento formal de los requisitos legales, reflejando un enfoque más conservador.

Estatuto de Carolina del Norte sobre fianzas en medidas cautelares

Carolina del Norte regula estas fianzas bajo el Estatuto General § 1A-1, Regla 65(c) y G.S. § 1-485 y siguientes, que siguen el modelo federal con ciertos matices estatales. G.S. § 1-485 dispone:

“No se concederá ninguna orden de restricción sin que la parte solicitante otorgue una garantía con suficiente fiador, que será aprobado por el tribunal…”

La fianza debe ser suficiente para cubrir los daños si se determina que la medida fue improcedente. Por lo general, los tribunales de Carolina del Norte exigen la fianza, salvo que la parte afectada la renuncie o el caso se enmarque dentro de una excepción, como demandas de interés público o por parte de demandantes indigentes.

Notablemente, la ley se refiere explícitamente a la fianza como un “compromiso” (undertaking), y los tribunales han interpretado este término como una obligación de tipo fiduciario para los fiadores y beneficiarios. En A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 301 N.C. 393 (1980), la Corte Suprema del estado sostuvo que la fianza debe ser interpretada y aplicada estrictamente conforme a sus términos. El enfoque de Carolina del Norte es relativamente formalista y consistente con una tradición de cumplimiento procesal estricto, exigiendo a las partes observar cuidadosamente las obligaciones tanto sustantivas como procesales.

Análisis Comparativo

6.1. Discrecionalidad y Obligación
Las cuatro jurisdicciones exigen la presentación de una fianza antes de conceder medidas cautelares preliminares. Sin embargo, la discrecionalidad del tribunal varía. Las normas federales y de Carolina del Norte otorgan cierta flexibilidad en cuanto al monto, pero imponen la obligación salvo renuncia. California e Illinois permiten mayor flexibilidad en términos de ejecución y condiciones.

6.2. Daños Recuperables
En todas las jurisdicciones se reconocen daños por medidas indebidas, pero el alcance varía. En el ámbito federal e Illinois, la recuperación se limita generalmente al monto de la fianza. California y Carolina del Norte permiten interpretaciones más amplias en casos excepcionales. California es la más liberal, permitiendo daños consecuenciales y honorarios legales. Cabe advertir aquí sobre la “inflación social”: aunque las compañías de fianzas desean que sus obligaciones se limiten estrictamente al monto indicado en la fianza, varios tribunales han superado estos límites mediante orden judicial. (Ver más en mi artículo sobre inflación social).

6.3. Formalismo Procesal
Illinois y Carolina del Norte reflejan un enfoque más formalista, exigiendo presentación contemporánea de la fianza y cumplimiento estricto del lenguaje legal. California adopta un enfoque más equitativo, permitiendo excepciones en interés de la justicia.

6.4. Requisitos de Fianza y Fiadores
Cada jurisdicción permite fiadores individuales o corporativos, aunque los estándares varían. Carolina del Norte exige aprobación judicial explícita del fiador. California permite fianzas sin fiadores en ciertos casos. Las cortes federales suelen aplicar prácticas comerciales estándar, pero TODAS las obligaciones deben ser ejecutadas por compañías que figuren en el Circular del Tesoro de EE.UU. como emisores aceptables.

Consideraciones de Política Pública

La fianza en medidas cautelares cumple una doble función: disuadir solicitudes frívolas y proteger a los demandados contra perjuicios derivados de restricciones improcedentes. Sin embargo, estos objetivos deben equilibrarse con el interés público de conceder alivio en casos meritorios. Una fianza excesiva puede desalentar reclamos legítimos, especialmente de demandantes con recursos limitados. Una exigencia muy baja puede no proteger adecuadamente a las partes afectadas. Por ello, los tribunales deben ejercer juicio matizado, especialmente cuando se equilibran intereses privados con el bien público, como en casos ambientales o de derechos civiles.

Además, el rol de los fiadores en estos mecanismos no puede subestimarse. Las compañías de fianzas asumen el riesgo del pago de daños y deben evaluar la credibilidad del solicitante y la probabilidad de resultados adversos. En ese sentido, las fianzas no son solo instrumentos legales, sino también financieros, donde consideraciones actuariales e instrumentos de suscripción se entrelazan con la justicia procesal.

El mecanismo de la fianza en medidas cautelares es una herramienta esencial del litigio civil en EE.UU., proporcionando un método estructurado para compensar daños causados por medidas judiciales provisionales. Aunque el sistema federal y los estados de California, Illinois y Carolina del Norte exigen fianzas antes de emitir medidas cautelares, existen diferencias sustanciales en cuanto a discrecionalidad, daños permitidos y rigidez procesal.

Los profesionales del derecho deben comprender estas diferencias para navegar eficazmente por el proceso de medidas cautelares. Futuras revisiones del recurso cautelar y las fianzas que lo respaldan deberían considerar datos empíricos sobre los resultados de estas fianzas, tendencias judiciales en su fijación y el papel evolutivo de los fiadores en el litigio civil, a fin de ofrecer mejor orientación tanto al poder judicial como al foro legal.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, ASLI, ARe, AFSB

Referencias

• 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-103 (Illinois Code of Civil Procedure).
• A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 301 N.C. 393, 271 S.E.2d 226 (1980).
• Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-CV-00630, 877 F. Supp. 2d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
• Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 529–534.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).
• Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999).
• In re Marriage of Newton, 2011 IL App (1st) 090683.
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-485.
• White v. Davis, 30 Cal. 4th 528, 68 P.3d 74 (2003).

Posted on

Disinformation as “Insurgency”, an American Constitutional View

disinformation, misinformation, espionage, counterespionage, counterintelligence, spy, subversion, psyops

I read with a great deal of interest Jacob Ware’s article “To fight disinformation, treat it as an insurgency” that appeared recently in The Strategist, an Australian Strategic Policy Institute publication. I have always held my own ideas about disinformation, more specifically “inoculation” as a countermeasure and recommending instruction from a very young age much as grade schools do in the baltic states. Ware’s article tackles the subject matter as a ‘control social media’ issue. I do not disagree with the importance of media responsibility for moderation of certain types of content, Ware appropriately identifies “overlook[ing] the important role of digital consumers”, but doubles down on content control. The article suggests that social media companies, as central nodes in the information ecosystem, must be pressured into moderating content more aggressively as much as the importance of digital consumers themselves being hardened against manipulation (“inoculation” as I have written in previous scholarship”. Control, compelling in its framing, raises some not insignificant constitutional issues in the context of the United States, particularly with regard to the First Amendment’s protections of speech, association, and press.

Framing Disinformation as Insurgency: Strategic and Legal Ramifications
Ware’s analogy between insurgencies and disinformation campaigns conveys the existential threat that hostile narratives, particularly those that foreign actors pose to democratic stability. Comparing disinformation actors to terrorist insurgents invites the application of military-style containment and suppression tactics, perhaps even the “cyber-kinetic” removal of bad actors (i.e., content moderation and bans), the targeting of ideological hubs (e.g., online communities, networks, influencers, etc.), and critically, the enforcement of norms through government-backed initiatives.

In the U.S. legal context, much of this may be a non-starter. Insurgents and terrorists operate outside the protection of constitutional law, whereas digital speakers, however misinformed or malicious, are presumptively entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. The Constitution does not permit the government to silence unpopular, false or even offensive ideas unless they meet strict criteria for incitement, true threats, or defamation. This legal boundary sharply limits the government’s ability to treat digital speech as a national security threat without triggering robust judicial scrutiny, even if that information is objectively dangerous disinformation.

Section 230 and Platform Immunity: The Epicenter of the Debate
The article criticizes Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996), which shields internet platforms from liability for user-generated content. This statute is often viewed as the legal linchpin that enabled the growth of the modern internet, on the whole a pretty positive thing. Ware argues that these protections prevent platforms from being held accountable and serve as a digital safe haven for malign actors. From a policy standpoint, this critique doesn’t hold much merit. Critics across the political spectrum argue that Section 230 incentivizes platforms to prioritize engagement and profit over truth and social stability, however, repealing or modifying Section 230 would not directly authorize government censorship. It WOULD expose platforms to civil liability for failing to moderate. Any new federal statute that imposes content-based restrictions or penalties would need to meet all prongs of the constitutional free speech tests and modern U.S. jurisprudence. The courts have routinely ruled that platforms are private entities with their own First Amendment rights therefore even in the absence of Section 230, the government would not be able to compel social media companies to carry or remove specific content unless it satisfies narrow constitutional exceptions.

Free Speech: A Distinctly American Commitment
A central theme in the article is the frustration that American-style free speech doctrines allow dangerous ideas to circulate freely online. Ware writes from an Australian perspective. The article praises the European Union’s Digital Services Act and Australia’s eSafety initiatives as superlative regulatory models. Under those statutory regimes platforms face stiff penalties for failing to suppress harmful content. These approaches may appear pragmatic but they clearly represent a sharp divergence from U.S. legal culture.

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits government abridgement of speech, including offensive, deceptive, or politically inconvenient speech. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court struck down a federal law criminalizing false claims about military honors, holding that even deliberate lies are constitutionally protected unless they cause specific, fixable harm. Further, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court established that even advocacy of illegal action is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action AND is likely to produce such action. So, even under the noble pretext of national defense, any proposal that seeks to directly regulate speech must reconcile with this robust jurisprudence. Foreign governments might be able to implement speech controls without constitutional constraints. We cannot. The U.S. must address disinformation through less intrusive, constitutionally sound means.

Counterinsurgency in a Civilian Space: Policing Thought and Risking Overreach
Ware’s counterinsurgency metaphor extends beyond moderation into behavioral engineering, winning the “hearts and minds” of digital citizens. This vision includes public education, civilian fact-checking brigades, and a sort of civic hygiene campaign against harmful content. Although such measures may be effective as psychological operations (PSYOPs), the distinction between persuasion and indoctrination must be carefully managed in a free society.

There is legitimate concern that state-sponsored resilience campaigns could slip into propaganda or viewpoint discrimination, especially when political actors define what constitutes “disinformation.” The inconvenient truth is that the label of “misinformation” has been applied inconsistently, sometimes suppressing legitimate dissent or valid minority viewpoints. The First Amendment’s commitment to a “marketplace of ideas theory” assumes that truth ultimately prevails in open debate, not through coercive narrative management.

There is another danger. Using the tools of counterinsurgency, even rhetorically, raises alarms about militarizing civil discourse and legitimizing authoritarian measures under the guise of “national security.” In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court warned against extending military logic to civilian legal systems. Applying wartime strategy to cultural or political disputes in the civilian cyber domain risks undermining the very liberal values the state claims to protect.

An Appropriate Role for Government
Despite consitutional guardrails, the federal government is not powerless. Several constitutionally sound measures remain available. These approaches avoid entangling the government in the perilous business of adjudicating truth while still defending the information ecosystem.:

Transparency Requirements – Congress can require social media companies to disclose their moderation policies, algorithmic preferences, and foreign funding sources without dictating content outcomes.

Education Initiatives – Civics education and media literacy programs are constitutionally permissible and could help inoculate the public against disinformation without coercion.

Voluntary Partnerships – The government can engage with platforms voluntarily, offering intelligence or warnings about malign foreign influence without mandating suppression.

Targeting Foreign Actors – The government can lawfully sanction, indict, or expel foreign individuals and entities engaged in coordinated disinformation campaigns under laws governing espionage, foreign lobbying, or election interference.

Ware’s comparison of disinformation to insurgency is strategically evocative, but its prescriptive implications clash with foundational American principles. The First Amendment might seem inconvenient, but it was designed to prevent precisely the kind of overreach that counterinsurgency measures invite. Democracies do not defeat authoritarianism by adopting its tools of censorship and narrative control. If the United States is to confront the threats of disinformation effectively, it must do so in a way that affirms rather than undermines what makes us distinctively American. Educating, not censoring; persuading, not suppressing; and building durable civic institutions capable of withstanding the torrent of falsehoods without succumbing to the lure of government-controlled truth are imperative. Freedom remains the best antidote to tyranny ONLY if we remain vigilant in its defense.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter,

  • Master of Arts in Intelligence
  • Graduate Certificate in Counterintelligence
  • Undergraduate Certificate in Counterintelligence
  • Former I.C. Cleared Contractor
Posted on

Injunction Bonds, a Brief Comparative View

injuction, injuction bond, federal injunction bond, surety, surety bond, surety bonds, court bond, court surety, judicial surety, c. constantin poindexter, surety one;

An injunction is a powerful judicial remedy that can significantly impact the rights and conduct of parties during litigation. The injunction bond mechanism is a critical component of the equitable relief process, providing special financial assurance to enjoined parties in the event that an injunction is later found to have been improvidently granted. I am going to explore the legal foundation and application of injunction bonds here, with a brief comparative analysis of relevant statutes and practices in the federal judiciary and in the states of California, Illinois, and North Carolina. Of course, each state has its own statutory regime with regards to the injunction bond so I do not mean this an exhaustive comparison paper but rather a look at some of the venues in which MANY of these bonds are issued and where significant precedent also exists. I am going to assess some similarities and divergences in statutory language, judicial interpretation, and procedural application, highlighting implications for litigants, courts, and surety companies.

  1. Introduction

Injunctions are a core component of equitable remedies in U.S. jurisprudence, designed to maintain the status quo or prevent irreparable harm pending final adjudication. However, due to their potentially disruptive nature, courts often condition the granting of injunctions on the posting of a bond, known as an “injunction bond” or “undertaking.”

This bond acts as a financial guarantee for the enjoined party, allowing for compensation should the injunction later be deemed wrongful. This mechanism plays an essential role in balancing the interests of justice and preventing abuse of equitable relief. Federal and state jurisdictions have adopted varying statutory and procedural frameworks for injunction bonds, reflecting differing policy considerations and judicial philosophies.

  1. The Federal Injunction Bond Statute and Rule

In federal court, injunction bonds are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which provides:

“The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

This rule leaves the determination of the bond amount to the discretion of the court, though the requirement itself is mandatory unless waived in exceptional circumstances. The purpose of Rule 65(c) is to ensure that the enjoined party can recover damages if it is ultimately found that the injunction should not have been issued. The bond therefore functions as a limitation of liability; damages for wrongful injunction are typically recoverable only up to the amount of the bond. (See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)).

Courts have discretion to set bond amounts, and appellate review typically defers to the district court’s findings unless they constitute an abuse of discretion. In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., the Northern District of California required Apple to post a $95.6 million bond for a preliminary injunction, exemplifying the high stakes involved.

  1. California’s Injunction Bond Statute

California’s statutory scheme for injunction bonds is codified in California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 529-532. Section 529 requires that:

“On granting an injunction, the court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant, with or without sureties, in such sum as the court or judge may direct…”

The statute provides that the bond secures payment of damages to the restrained party if the court determines that the injunction was wrongfully issued. Like the federal rule, the California statute makes the bond a condition precedent for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, but it gives broader leeway regarding surety requirements.

A key feature of California law is the specificity with which it permits recovery against the bond, including attorney’s fees and consequential damages, provided the injunction was wrongful. Section 534 also permits the court to stay an injunction if the bond is insufficient or improperly executed.

California courts have also interpreted the statute to permit claims beyond the bond under certain equitable theories, though this remains controversial. In White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (2003), the California Supreme Court permitted claims for wrongful injunction damages against the state, though immunities were implicated.

  1. Illinois’ Injunction Bond Statute

In Illinois, injunction bond requirements are governed by 735 ILCS 5/11-103 (Code of Civil Procedure), which states:

“No preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained…”

Illinois courts take a relatively strict view of the bond requirement. Failure to post the bond can invalidate the injunction, and recovery under the bond is typically limited to the face amount unless the bond was obtained fraudulently.

An important Illinois precedent is In re Marriage of Newton, 2011 IL App (1st) 090683, in which the appellate court held that damages must be clearly proven and directly linked to the issuance of the injunction. Illinois law permits a surety or surety company to act as the bond provider, but the bond must be posted contemporaneously with the injunction order.

Unlike federal courts, Illinois courts are somewhat more rigid in demanding adherence to the statutory bond requirement, reflecting a more conservative approach to judicial equitable discretion.

  1. North Carolina’s Injunction Bond Statute

North Carolina governs injunction bonds under North Carolina General Statutes § 1A-1, Rule 65(c) and G.S. § 1-485 et seq., which are modeled closely after the Federal Rules but include state-specific nuances. G.S. § 1-485 mandates that:

“No restraining order shall be granted until the party applying therefor shall give an undertaking, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the court…”

The bond must be sufficient to cover damages in case the injunction is later found to be unwarranted. North Carolina courts have generally required the bond unless the enjoined party waives it or the case falls under an exception, such as actions involving indigent plaintiffs or public interest litigation.

Notably, North Carolina’s statute explicitly refers to the bond as an “undertaking,” and courts have interpreted this term to impose fiduciary-like obligations on sureties and parties who benefit from the bond. In A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 301 N.C. 393 (1980), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a bond must be strictly construed and enforced against the principal according to its terms.

North Carolina’s approach is relatively formalistic and consistent with a broader tradition of procedural adherence, requiring parties to observe both substantive and procedural obligations closely when seeking injunctive relief.

  1. Comparative Analysis

6.1. Discretion and Mandates

All four jurisdictions require the posting of a bond before granting preliminary injunctive relief. However, the discretion afforded to the courts varies. The federal rule and North Carolina statutes give courts some discretion in setting the amount but make the bond mandatory unless waived. California and Illinois statutes require bonds but allow more flexibility in determining their terms and execution.

6.2. Recoverable Damages

All jurisdictions recognize damages for wrongful injunctions, but the scope of those damages varies. Federal courts and Illinois limit recovery strictly to the bond amount, while California and North Carolina permit broader interpretations in exceptional cases. California is most liberal in permitting consequential damages and attorney’s fees. I have to insert a word of caution here about “social inflation”. While sureties would like to assume that their obligations will be strictly limited to the bond penalties that appear thereon, several courts have obviated those limits by order. (See more on my piece about social inflation here).

6.3. Procedural Formality

Illinois and North Carolina reflect a more formalistic approach to procedural compliance, emphasizing the importance of contemporaneous bond issuance and strict adherence to statutory language. California courts take a more equitable approach, occasionally allowing exceptions in the interest of justice.

6.4. Suretyship Requirements

Each jurisdiction allows for individual or corporate sureties, though the standards of sufficiency differ. North Carolina requires court approval of sureties explicitly, and California allows for bonds without sureties in certain circumstances. Federal courts typically rely on standard commercial surety practices unless otherwise directed however, ALL obligations issued in federal matters must be executed by surety companies that appear on the current U.S. Treasury Circular of acceptable obligors.

  1. Policy Considerations and Implications

The injunction bond serves dual purposes: deterring frivolous or speculative injunction requests and protecting defendants from losses due to improper restraints. However, these goals must be balanced against the public interest in granting relief in meritorious cases. Too high a bond requirement may chill legitimate claims, particularly from plaintiffs with limited financial resources. Too low a requirement may fail to protect enjoined parties adequately. Courts must therefore exercise nuanced judgment, particularly when balancing private interests with the public good, such as in environmental or civil rights litigation.

Additionally, the role of sureties in these mechanisms cannot be overstated. Surety providers bear the risk of paying damages and must evaluate the principal’s credibility and the likelihood of adverse judicial findings. As such, injunction bonds serve not only as legal instruments but also as financial ones, where actuarial and underwriting considerations intersect with procedural justice.

The injunction bond mechanism is an essential tool in U.S. civil litigation, providing a structured method to compensate for harm caused by provisional judicial remedies. While the federal system and the states of California, Illinois, and North Carolina all mandate bonds before issuing injunctions, they differ meaningfully in the scope of discretion, permissible damages, and procedural rigidity.

Legal practitioners must understand these distinctions to navigate injunctive relief effectively. Future review of the injunction remedy and the surety bonds that secure them should explore empirical data on injunction bond outcomes, judicial trends in bond-setting, and the evolving role of sureties in civil litigation to better inform both the judiciary and the bar.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, ASLI, ARe, AFSB

References

735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-103 (Illinois Code of Civil Procedure).

A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 301 N.C. 393, 271 S.E.2d 226 (1980).

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-CV-00630, 877 F. Supp. 2d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 529–534.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).

Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999).

In re Marriage of Newton, 2011 IL App (1st) 090683.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-485.

White v. Davis, 30 Cal. 4th 528, 68 P.3d 74 (2003).

Posted on

La Fianza y la “Inflación Social”

fianza, fianzas, caución, cauciones, seguros, corredor de seguros, asegurador, aseguradora;

Las fianzas judiciales tradicionalmente se han percibido como instrumentos con penalidades fijas, que limitan explícitamente la responsabilidad de la afianzadora al monto nominal de la fianza. Esta interpretación ha proporcionado durante mucho tiempo un marco claro tanto para las afianzadoras, como para los afianzados y los obligantes (beneficiarios). Sin embargo, interpretaciones judiciales recientes han introducido complicaciones a esta visión, desafiando los límites convencionales de la responsabilidad de la afianzadora y señalando un posible cambio en el panorama jurídico. Sin lugar a dudas, estamos percibiendo ‘inflación social’ en el ámbito de las fianzas judiciales. Por más que a quienes trabajamos en este sector nos gustaría creer que nuestro nicho especial es inmune a esos factores sociales que afectan a los productos de responsabilidad civil, tal como el aumento del litigio, interpretaciones más amplias de la responsabilidad, indemnizaciones desproporcionadas por parte de los jurados y doctrinas jurídicas en evolución, pensar así es un error. El sector de fianzas ya no puede esconderse tras el argumento del “estrictamente limitado a la penalidad aquí estipulada”, frente a abogados litigantes agresivos, definiciones expandidas de negligencia, financiamiento de litigios por terceros y percepciones públicas sobre las ricas compañías de seguros que “nunca pagan”.

La Interpretación Tradicional de la Responsabilidad de la Afianzadora

Las fianzas judiciales han funcionado como garantías mediante las cuales la afianzadora asegura al beneficiario el cumplimiento de las obligaciones del afianzado, con su responsabilidad estrictamente limitada al monto penal establecido en la fianza. Este principio ha garantizado que, independientemente de las circunstancias o particularidades del caso legal, la exposición financiera de la afianzadora no exceda el monto fijado previamente. Este marco ha permitido a las afianzadoras evaluar con precisión su exposición al riesgo y establecer primas adecuadas, fomentando un entorno de fianzas judiciales estable y predecible.

Nuevas Interpretaciones Judiciales: Más Allá del Monto Penal

Decisiones judiciales recientes han comenzado a cuestionar este paradigma de límite fijo, particularmente en escenarios que involucran alegaciones de mala fe o conductas dolosas por parte de la afianzadora. En estos casos, los tribunales han explorado la posibilidad de imponer responsabilidades que excedan la penalidad original, especialmente cuando las acciones (o inacciones) de la afianzadora han agravado las pérdidas del beneficiario.

Casos (de EEUU) que Ilustran la Expansión de la Responsabilidad de la Afianzadora

Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc.

En este caso de California, el tribunal sostuvo que una afianzadora puede ser responsable por honorarios legales y costos que superen el monto penal de la fianza judicial. El tribunal razonó que, cuando los honorarios de abogado son adjudicados como costos estatutarios, estos también pueden ser exigidos a la afianzadora más allá del monto de la fianza. Esta decisión destaca la posibilidad de que las afianzadoras enfrenten responsabilidades superiores a su exposición anticipada, particularmente en relación con los gastos legales derivados de controversias.

Dodge v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

La Corte Suprema de Arizona abordó la cuestión de si una afianzadora podría ser responsable por daños extracontractuales que excedan el monto de la fianza debido a una supuesta mala fe. El tribunal concluyó que, conforme a los estatutos de seguros de Arizona, una afianzadora puede ser responsable por dichos daños, alineando sus obligaciones más estrechamente con las de las pólizas de seguros tradicionales en lugar de las obligaciones típicas de una afianzadora. Este caso resalta la disposición del poder judicial a imponer responsabilidades más amplias a las afianzadoras, especialmente cuando su conducta se considera como contribuyente a las pérdidas del beneficiario.

Implicaciones para la Industria de Fianzas/Cauciones

Esta evolución en la interpretación judicial requiere una reevaluación de las estrategias de suscripción y gestión de riesgos por parte de las afianzadoras. Ahora deben considerar la posibilidad de responsabilidades que excedan el monto penal de la fianza en aquellas jurisdicciones que reconocen reclamaciones extracontractuales por mala fe o que alinean las obligaciones de la afianzadora con las de los seguros tradicionales.

Medidas Proactivas para las Afianzadoras

Es apropiado realizar evaluaciones exhaustivas de los afianzados, con especial atención a la mitigación de los riesgos excesivos asociados con incumplimientos y posibles reclamaciones por mala fe. Incluso en aquellas clases de negocio que generalmente requieren respaldo de garantías colaterales (como fianzas de apelación o supersedeas, fianzas por órdenes de restricción temporales de alto monto, fianzas de medidas cautelares, etc.), será importante considerar tanto la condición financiera del afianzado como la imposición de requisitos colaterales que excedan la penalidad de la fianza. Las compañías de fianzas deben asegurarse de que los acuerdos de indemnización contemplen explícitamente escenarios de responsabilidad que superen el monto de la fianza, ofreciendo así una vía clara de recuperación para la afianzadora. También es imprescindible mantener líneas abiertas de comunicación con los beneficiarios y afianzados, desde la suscripción, para comprender claramente el caso, la jurisdicción y la jurisprudencia sobre pérdida de fianza, y para abordar oportunamente cualquier situación que pudiera escalar hacia litigios contra la afianzadora. Es fundamental monitorear y analizar regularmente las decisiones judiciales y los cambios legislativos que puedan afectar la responsabilidad de las afianzadoras.

Aunque históricamente las fianzas judiciales han sido instrumentos de responsabilidad limitada, los desarrollos legales recientes subrayan la importancia de que las afianzadoras se mantengan alerta y sean adaptables. Al abordar proactivamente estos desafíos emergentes, las afianzadoras pueden seguir cumpliendo su papel fundamental en los procesos judiciales, equilibrando los intereses de todas las partes involucradas.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, CPCU, JD, MA, ASLI, ARe, AFSB

Surety One, Inc.

Janus Assurance Re