Insurance Law Alert

July/August 2018

In This Issue
Two Federal Circuit Courts Rule That Fraudulent Wire Transfer Losses
Are Covered By Liability Policy
The Second and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals ruled that claims arising out of a fraudulent
wire transfer are covered by a “computer fraud” provision. Medidata Solutions Inc. v. Federal
Ins. Co., 2018 WL 333924 (2d Cir. July 6, 2018); Am. Tooling Ctr., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. &Sur. Co. of Am., 2018 WL 3404708 (6th Cir. July 13, 2018). (Click here for full article)“The teamdemonstrates
extremely highintellect and provides
highly practical advice.”– Chambers USA 2018(quoting a client)

Applying Texas Law, Delaware Supreme Court Enforces Anti-Assignment
Clause To Bar Coverage For Asbestos Liabilities
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that Texas law governs an asbestos-related coverage
dispute and that an anti-assignment clause precludes coverage for the losses at issue. Travelers
Indem. Co. v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC, 2018 WL 3434562 (Del. July 16, 2018). (Click here forfull article)

Finding Deductible Provision Ambiguous, Ninth Circuit Rules That
Policyholder Does Not Owe Deductible For Each Construction Defect
Claim
The Ninth Circuit ruled that an insured stucco company is responsible for three deductible
payments notwithstanding that there were 636 underlying claims alleging construction defects.
Probuilders Speciality Ins. Co. v. Yarbrough Plastering, 2018 WL 3099434 (9th Cir. June 25,2018). (Click here for full article)

Sixth Circuit Rules That Settlement Offer Is A “Claim” Under Claims-Made
Policies
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a Tennessee district court decision holding that a settlement
offer constituted a “claim” under a claims-made policy and that the policyholder’s Notice ofCircumstances was inadequate to preserve coverage. First Horizon Nat’l Corp. v. Houston Cas.
Co., 2018 WL 3359555 (6th Cir. July 10, 2018). (Click here for full article)

Second Circuit Rules That Business Expense Claims Are Barred By Suit
Limitation Clause
The Second Circuit ruled that a two-year suit limitations clause in a property policy was
unambiguous and enforceable as to the property owner’s business income and extra expense
claims. Classic Laundry & Linen Corp. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 WL 3147429(2d Cir. June 26, 2018). (Click here for full article)

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP1

Rejecting Argument That Windows Are “Real Property,” Minnesota Court
Rules That “Your Product” Exclusion Bars Coverage For Defective Product
ClaimsA Minnesota federal district court ruled that a “Your Product” exclusion in a liability policy
precludes coverage for property damage claims based on alleged defects in the windows
installed in a building. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Viracon, Inc., 2018 WL
3029054 (D. Minn. June 18, 2018). (Click here for full article)

Two Courts Hold That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For NonTraditional Environmental Claims
Federal district courts in Florida and Texas ruled that a pollution exclusion bars coverage forclaims arising from non-traditional environmental contamination. Colony Ins. Co. v. Great
Am. Alliance Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3453975 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2018); Great American Insurance
Co. v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3370620 (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2018).
(Click here for full article)

Fourth Circuit Seeks South Carolina Supreme Court Guidance On Scope
Of Attorney-Client Privilege In Coverage Dispute
The Fourth Circuit has asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to address whether aninsurance company waives attorney-client privilege by challenging allegations of bad faith
failure to defend or indemnify. In re Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3203033 (4th Cir. June 28,2018). (Click here for full article)

2

Cyber Coverage
Alert:

Two Federal Circuit Courts RuleThat Fraudulent Wire Transfer
Losses Are Covered By Liability
PolicyThe Second Circuit ruled that claims arisingout of a fraudulent wire transfer are coveredby a “computer fraud” provision in a policy.
Medidata Solutions Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.,2018 WL 333924 (2d Cir. July 6, 2018).
A Metidata employee received an email
purportedly sent from the company’s
president advising her to follow instructions
to be received from an attorney regarding
a potential corporate acquisition. Thatsame day, a man who identified himself
as an attorney called the employee andrequested a wire transfer. The employee
sought confirmation to make the transferfrom Medidata’s executives. Thereafter, apurported email from Medidata’s president
confirmed that the wire transfer should be
made. On that basis, the wire transfer was
made. It was later discovered that the emails
were sent by imposters. Medidata sought
coverage from Federal under provisions
relating to computer fraud, funds transfer
fraud and forgery. Federal denied coverage,
and Medidata brought suit. A New York
district court ruled that the policy provided
coverage for the wire transfer losses pursuant
to the computer fraud and funds transfer
fraud provisions. Medidata Solutions, Inc. v.
Federal Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3268529 (S.D.N.Y.
July 21, 2017) (discussed in our July/August
2017 Alert). In a summary order, the Second
Circuit affirmed, ruling that the underlying
claims were encompassed by the computer
fraud provision.
The computer fraud provision provides
coverage for loss arising from the fraudulent
entry of data into a computer system orchange to data elements of a computer
system. The Second Circuit held that coverage
was implicated under this provision because
the thief embedded a computer code in the
spoofed emails to mask their true origin andthus violated the integrity of the computer
system. The court distinguished Universal
American Corp. v. National Union Fire
Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2015 WL
3885816 (N.Y. June 25, 2015) (discussed

in our July/August 2015 Alert) on the basisthat the fraud in that case was caused by anauthorized user’s submission of fraudulent
medical claims into the computer system,
whereas the present case involved fraudcaused by unauthorized access.
The Second Circuit further held that
Medidata sustained a “direct loss” as a resultof the spoofing incident, rejecting Federal’sassertion that the intervening actions by theMedidata employee in effectuating the wiretransfer were sufficient to “sever the causal
relationship between the spoofing attack andthat losses incurred.”

The Sixth Circuit also recently ruled thatclaims arising out of wire transfers initiatedby fraudulent emails were covered by a“computer fraud” policy provision. Am.
Tooling Ctr., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur.
Co. of Am., 2018 WL 3404708 (6th Cir. July13, 2018).
ATC, a tool and die manufacturer, received
a purported email from a vendor with whom
ATC did business. The email in actuality
was sent by an imposter using an email
with a similar domain. The email instructed
ATC to send invoice payments to a newbank account. In response, ATC wired
approximately $800,000 to the account. ATCsought coverage for the loss from Travelers,
which denied the claim. A Michigan district
court ruled that Travelers owed no coverage,
reasoning that ATC’s loss was not directly
caused by the use of a computer because ofintervening steps that occurred internallyat ATC between receipt of the fraudulent
email and the eventual transfer of funds. Am.
Tooling Ctr., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
of Am., 2017 WL 3263356 (E.D. Mich. Aug.

3

1, 2017) (discussed in our September 2017
Alert). The Sixth Circuit reversed.
Travelers’ policy covers the “direct lossof, or direct loss from damage to, Money,
Securities and Other Property directly caused
by Computer Fraud.” Computer Fraud isdefined as “[t]he use of any computer tofraudulently cause a transfer” of money orother property to a third party. The Sixth
Circuit ruled that ATC suffered a “directloss” of funds when it transferred the money
to the impersonator. The court rejected
the argument that there was no direct loss
because ATC contractually owed money to its
vendor. In addition, the Sixth Circuit ruledthat the impersonator’s conduct constituted“computer fraud” under the policy because
the fraudulent emails and resulting wiretransfer were implemented through the use of
a computer. Finally, the court held that ATC’s
loss was “directly caused” by computer fraud
because the fraudulent email induced a series
of internal actions that directly caused thetransfer of money. The court distinguishedInteractive Communications International,
Inc. v. Great American Insurance Co.,2018 WL 2149769 (11th Cir. May 10, 2018)(discussed in our May 2018 Alert), in which
the Eleventh Circuit held that losses did
not “result directly” from use of a computerbecause Georgia law construes “directly” tomean immediately and because there wereintervening steps and a delay between thecomputer fraud and financial loss.
As discussed in previous Alerts, other federal
circuit courts have rejected policyholder
attempts to obtain coverage for cyber-related
losses under computer fraud and similar
policy provisions. Such decisions largely turnon whether the factual record establishes
a sufficient connection between computeruse and the loss-causing event. See Taylor& Lieberman v. Fed. Ins. Corp., 2017 WL
929211 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2017) (coverage
unavailable under computer fraud provisionbecause sending an email, without more,does not constitute an unauthorized “entry
into” a computer system) (discussed in ourMarch 2017 Alert); Apache Corp. v. GreatAm. Ins. Co., 2016 WL 6090901 (5th Cir.
Oct. 18, 2016) (computer fraud provision
does not cover claims arising out of thetransfer of funds to criminal accounts becausea fraudulent email was only one part of achain of events that caused the loss, and theloss therefore was not caused “directly” bycomputer use) (discussed in our November
2016 Alert).

Assignment Alert:

Applying Texas Law, Delaware
Supreme Court Enforces AntiAssignment Clause To Bar Coverage
For Asbestos Liabilities
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that Texas
law governs an asbestos-related coverage
dispute and that an anti-assignment clauseprecludes coverage for the losses at issue.
Travelers Indem. Co. v. CNH Indus. Am.,
LLC, 2018 WL 3434562 (Del. July 16, 2018).
Tenneco, a Texas-based oil and gas company,
acquired J.I. Case, a Wisconsin corporation.
After the acquisition, Tenneco added Case to
its insurance policies, which were part of aprogram that covered Tenneco and its whollyowned subsidiaries located in various states.
Thereafter, Case assigned certain assets
and liabilities to CNH Industrial America, aDelaware company with its principal place ofbusiness in Wisconsin. CNH sued Travelers
and other insurers for defense and indemnity
for asbestos-related claims against it, claimingthat insurance coverage was part of theassignment.
A Delaware superior court concluded that
Wisconsin law governed the dispute, basedlargely on the insured’s principal placeof business. The court held that because
Case, rather than Tenneco, was the relevant
party, Wisconsin had the most significant
relationship to the parties and the dispute.
Applying Wisconsin law, the court held thatthe policies were validly assigned to CNH,
notwithstanding Travelers’ lack of consent.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed.
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that when
an insurance program covers risks acrossjurisdictions, the choice of law analysis should
focus on the place of contracting, negotiationand performance of the contracts, as wellas the location of the business of the parties
involved. Applying these factors, the court
held that Texas law governed the disputebecause Tenneco (not Case) contracted with
Travelers and because the contracts werenegotiated and managed in Texas. In soruling, the court noted that applying the law
4

of the locations of each Tenneco subsidiaryor claim would result in inconsistency andunpredictability in contract interpretation.

provision. ProBuilders argued that Yarbroughowed a separate deductible for each of the 636
homes at issue in the underlying suits.

The Delaware Supreme Court also rejected
CNH’s assertion that applying Texas law
violated Delaware public policy, stating that
unlike in Texas, “[t]here is no established
Delaware law that anti-assignment
provisions in insurance contracts are against
public policy.”

The court rejected this argument, findingthat only three deductibles were due – onefor each cross-complaint against Yarbrough.
The court noted that the policy requires aseparate deductible payment for each “claim,”
but emphasized that the policies did not
specify whether the operative “claim” is theunderlying homeowner’s claim against thecontractor or the contractor’s claim against
Yarbrough. Finding both constructions
reasonable, the court deemed the policy
ambiguous and interpreted the provisionin Yarbrough’s favor. In so ruling, the court
found it irrelevant that Yarbrough would havebeen obligated to pay 636 deductibles if thehomeowners had sued Yarbrough directly.

Coverage Alerts:
Deductible Alert:

Finding Deductible Provision
Ambiguous, Ninth Circuit Rules
That Policyholder Does Not Owe
Deductible For Each Construction
Defect Claim
The Ninth Circuit ruled that an insured is
responsible for paying three deductibles
notwithstanding that the underlying claims
alleged construction defects in 636 homes.
Probuilders Speciality Ins. Co. v. YarbroughPlastering, 2018 WL 3099434 (9th Cir. June25, 2018).
ProBuilders insured Yarbrough, a drywall
and stucco contractor, under liability policies
that required the company to pay a separate
deductible for “each and every claim . . .
irrespective of the number of claims which
may be joined in any one suit.” During thepolicy periods, Yarbrough performed workon several large housing developments.
Thereafter, 636 homeowners filed threelawsuits against the general contractor
alleging construction defects. The contractor
impleaded Yarbrough in three crosscomplaints for indemnity. ProBuilders settled
the claims against Yarbrough and then sought
reimbursement based on the deductible

Sixth Circuit Rules That Settlement
Offer Is A “Claim” Under ClaimsMade Policies
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a Tennessee district
court decision holding that a settlement offer
constituted a “claim” under a claims-madepolicy and that the policyholder’s Notice ofCircumstances did not preserve coverage.
First Horizon Nat’l Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co.,2018 WL 3359555 (6th Cir. July 10, 2018).
In 2012, government agencies began
investigating First Horizon for potential
False Claims Act violations. First Horizon
met with the agencies during 2013 andexecuted a tolling agreement in 2014, in
which the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
agreed to postpone filing an action against
First Horizon in order to allow for settlement
negotiations. In April 2014, the DOJ issued
a “settlement offer” of $610 million to First
Horizon, which was later confirmed via email.
In May 2014, First Horizon sent a Noticeof Circumstances to its insurers, setting
forth facts that might give rise to a claim
under the 2013-2014 policy. The Notice ofCircumstances did not disclose the DOJ
settlement offer or the tolling agreement.
In December 2014, the DOJ informed First
Horizon that its investigation was nearlycomplete and that if it did not receive a5settlement counteroffer, it would proceedwith litigation. In February 2015, First
Horizon notified its insurers of an upcoming
meeting with the DOJ and its intention to
make a $50 million settlement counteroffer.
First Horizon ultimately settled with thegovernment for $212.5 million and then sued
its insurers for coverage.

Travelers insured Classic Laundry under afirst-party policy that covers property damage
and business income loss or incurred extra
expense resulting from a covered loss. The
policy’s limitation clause provides that a legal
action must be “brought within 2 years after
the date on which the direct physical loss ordamage occurred.”

The Sixth Circuit ruled that the DOJ’s April
2014 settlement offer was a “claim,” defined
as “any written demand for monetary, nonmonetary or injunctive relief.” The court
rejected First Horizon’s assertion that the
April 2014 offer was not a “demand” because
it was not a forceful statement seeking moneywith a threat of consequences, holding that acommunication can still be a demand even if
it is phrased as a request.

When a fire damaged the covered property,
Travelers paid for the damage, but denied
coverage for business income and extra
expense based on Classic Laundry’s failure
to timely return a sworn statement of loss.
Nearly three years later, Classic Laundrysued Travelers. A New York federal district
court dismissed the suit as untimely basedon the suit limitations clause. The Second
Circuit affirmed.

Additionally, the Sixth Circuit held that First
Horizon’s Notice of Circumstances did notconstitute sufficient notice under the policy,
in part because it failed to mention the $610
million settlement offer. Finally, the court
rejected First Horizon’s assertion that theinsurers were not prejudiced by this lack of
specificity, noting that Tennessee law does
not require an insurer to establish prejudice
under such circumstances.

The Second Circuit ruled that the policy
unambiguously requires a suit based on any
claims for coverage – including lost income
and extra expense – to be brought within two
years of the loss-causing event. The court
rejected Classic Laundry’s assertion that thesuit limitations clause applies only to property
damage claims because business income andexpense claims are often not ascertainable
within a two-year period. The court deemed
the two-year period reasonable andenforceable as to all loss under the policies.

Second Circuit Rules That Business
Expense Claims Are Barred By Suit
Limitation Clause
The Second Circuit ruled that a two-year
suit limitations clause in a property policy
is unambiguous and enforceable as to theproperty owner’s business income and extra
expense claims. Classic Laundry & LinenCorp. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2018
WL 3147429 (2d Cir. June 26, 2018).

Rejecting Argument That Windows
Are “Real Property,” Minnesota
Court Rules That “Your Product”
Exclusion Bars Coverage For
Defective Product Claims
A Minnesota federal district court ruledthat a “Your Product” exclusion in a liability
policy precludes coverage for property
damage claims based on alleged defects in the6windows installed in a building. Nat’l Union
Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Viracon,
Inc., 2018 WL 3029054 (D. Minn. June18, 2018).
Underlying suits against Viracon, a glass
manufacturer, alleged that defects in theglass products used in two buildings caused
damage to windows and to property within
the buildings. National Union defended
Viracon under a reservation of rights andsought a declaration of no coverage.
Ruling on National Union’s summary
judgment motion, the court rejected theinsurer’s assertion that the costs to repair or
replace the allegedly defective windows is
outside the scope of covered property damage.
However, the court held that such damage
was excluded by a “Your Product” exclusion.
The exclusion bars coverage for property
damage to “Your Product arising out of it or
any part of it,” but does not apply to “realproperty.” Viracon argued that the exclusion
did not apply because the windows, asattachments to the buildings, constitute “realproperty.” The court disagreed, concludingthat the windows were not real property andthat the exclusion therefore applied.

In ensuing litigation, the court granted theinsurers’ summary judgment motion, holdingthat under Florida law, a pollution exclusion
applies to carbon monoxide claims. The
court rejected the homeowners association’s
assertion that coverage was restored by an
exception that applied to fumes originatingfrom heating or cooling equipment. The
court reasoned that a hypothetical scenario
in which the carbon monoxide might haveoriginated from the heating or cooling system
did not create a potential for coverage since
the underlying complaint listed a car as the
only potential source of the toxic fumes.
Further, the court held that the exception did
not apply by virtue of the fact that the coolingor heating ducts were the conduit throughwhich the fumes reached the residence.

federal district court also enforced
Pollution Exclusion AanTexas
absolute pollution exclusion in a nontraditional context in Great American
Alert:
Insurance Co. v. Ace American Insurance

Two Courts Hold That Pollution
Exclusion Bars Coverage For NonTraditional Environmental Claims

Federal district courts in Florida and Texas
ruled that a pollution exclusion bars coveragefor claims that arose from non-traditional
environmental contamination.
In Colony Insurance Co. v. Great American
Alliance Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3453975 (S.D.
Fla. July 17, 2018), the court ruled that
insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify
a homeowners association in a wrongfuldeath suit arising out of carbon monoxide
inhalation. According to the underlying
complaint, carbon monoxide originatingfrom a car in the unit’s garage, seeped
into the air conditioning vents and ducts,
eventually reaching a second story residence.
The insurers denied coverage based on an
absolute pollution exclusion.

Co., 2018 WL 3370620 (N.D. Tex. July 10,2018). There, the underlying claims aroseout of the dispersal of rock fines (small
particles of rock generated as part of thestone-crushing process at the insured’s
rock quarry) into an adjacent reservoir. The
rock fines were supposed to be contained
in settling ponds, but due to a pumping
accident, were carried into a waterway that
led to a reservoir. According to government
agencies, the rock fines damaged the stream
bed and required remediation by the quarry.
The insurers denied coverage based on apollution exclusion.
The court ruled that the rock fines were
pollutants within the meaning of the
exclusion, notwithstanding their “ordinary
usefulness.” In holding the pollution exclusion
applicable, the court emphasized that therock fines constituted waste material from thecrushing process, and became contaminants
7when “discharged and dispersed where
they did not belong.” Rejecting the quarry’s
assertion that rock fines are a nonhazardous
material, the court stated: “If they wereindeed innocuous, the State of New Jersey
would not have required remediation.”

Privilege Alert:

Fourth Circuit Seeks South Carolina
Supreme Court Guidance On Scope
Of Attorney-Client Privilege In
Coverage Dispute
The Fourth Circuit has asked the South
Carolina Supreme Court to address whether
an insurance company waives attorney-client
privilege by challenging allegations of bad
faith failure to defend or indemnify. In re Mt.
Hawley Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3203033 (4th Cir.
June 28, 2018).
In a construction defect coverage dispute,the policyholder sought production of its
insurer’s claim files. The insurer argued thatthe files contained information protectedby attorney-client privilege and produced
the files in redacted form. The policyholder
moved to compel, arguing that the insurer
waived privilege. A South Carolina district
court granted the motion to compel andordered the insurer to produce the files forin camera inspection. The insurer sought awrit of mandamus from the Fourth Circuit tovacate the district court’s order. The insurer
argued that the district court erred in holdingthat the files were not protected by privilege
because the insurer put them “at issue” bydenying it had acted in bad faith and byasserting that it acted reasonably.
Emphasizing the lack of controlling South
Carolina law as to the scope of the “at issue”
exception to attorney-client privilege in thecontext of insurer bad faith claims, the Fourth
Circuit certified the following question to
the South Carolina Supreme Court: “DoesSouth Carolina law support application ofthe ‘at issue’ exception to the attorney-client
privilege such that a party may waive theprivilege by denying liability in its answer?”
We will keep you posted of any developmentsin this matter.

8

Simpson Thacher has been an international leader in the practice of insurance and reinsurance law for
more than a quarter of a century. Our insurance litigation team practices worldwide.

Mary Beth Forshaw+1-212-455-2846
mforshaw@stblaw.com

Michael D. Kibler+1-310-407-7515
mkibler@stblaw.com

Craig S. Waldman+1-212-455-2881
cwaldman@stblaw.com

Andrew T. Frankel+1-212-455-3073
afrankel@stblaw.com

Michael J. Garvey+1-212-455-7358
mgarvey@stblaw.com

Susannah S. Geltman+1-212-455-2762
sgeltman@stblaw.com

Lynn K. Neuner+1-212-455-2696
lneuner@stblaw.com

Tyler B. Robinson+44-(0)20-7275-6118
trobinson@stblaw.com

Elisa Alcabes+1-212-455-3133
ealcabes@stblaw.com

Chet A. Kronenberg+1-310-407-7557
ckronenberg@stblaw.com

George S. Wang
+1-212-455-2228
gwang@stblaw.com

Summer Craig+1-212-455-3881
scraig@stblaw.com

Bryce L. Friedman+1-212-455-2235
bfriedman@stblaw.com

Deborah L. Stein+1-310-407-7525
dstein@stblaw.com

Daniel J. Stujenske+1-212-455-2419
dstujenske@stblaw.com

This edition of the
Insurance Law Alert was
prepared by Mary Beth Forshaw
mforshaw@stblaw.com /+1-212-4552846 and Bryce L. Friedman
bfriedman@stblaw.com /+1-212-4552235 with contributions
by Karen Cestarikcestari@stblaw.com.

The contents of this publication are for informational purposes only. Neither this publication nor the
lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts
or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an
attorney-client relationship. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP assumes no liability in connection withthe use of this publication. Please contact your relationship partner if we can be of assistance regardingthese important developments. The names and office locations of all of our partners, as well as ourrecent memoranda, can be obtained from our website, www.simpsonthacher.com.
Please click here to subscribe to the Insurance Law Alert.
9SimpsonThacherWorldwide

UNITED STATESEUROPE

SOUTH AMERICANew York
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017+1-212-455-2000

LondonCityPoint
One Ropemaker Street
London EC2Y 9HUEngland+44-(0)20-7275-6500

São Paulo
Av. Presidente Juscelino
Kubitschek, 1455
São Paulo, SP 04543-011
Brazil+55-11-3546-1000

Houston
600 Travis Street, Suite 5400
Houston, TX 77002+1-713-821-5650
Los Angeles
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067+1-310-407-7500
Palo Alto
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304+1-650-251-5000
Washington, D.C.
900 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001+1-202-636-5500

ASIA

Beijing
3901 China World Tower
1 Jian Guo Men Wai Avenue
Beijing 100004
China+86-10-5965-2999
Hong Kong
ICBC Tower
3 Garden Road, Central
Hong Kong+852-2514-7600
Seoul
25th Floor, West Tower
Mirae Asset Center 1
26 Eulji-ro 5-gil, Jung-gu
Seoul 100-210
Korea+82-2-6030-3800
Tokyo
Ark Hills Sengokuyama Mori Tower
9-10, Roppongi 1-Chome
Minato-Ku, Tokyo 106-0032
Japan+81-3-5562-6200
10