Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.
As Andrew Jones and Daniela Miklova report, the recent case of Ristorante Limited t/a Bar Massimo v Zurich Insurance plc [2021] EWHC 2538 is a useful insight into how the Court will interpret the questions and answers in insurers’ proposal forms in coverage disputes. It also shows how insurers can lose potential policy defences through the drafting of proposal form questions going wrong.
A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.
A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.
On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.
Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).
The Court of Appeal raises the bar for insolvent claimants on security for costs
On Friday, the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions closed Bramble Savings Bank, headquartered in Milford, Ohio, and appointed the FDIC as receiver for the bank. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Foundation Bank, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, to assume all of the deposits of Bramble Savings Bank.
On Friday, the Office of Thrift Supervision closed Maritime Savings Bank, headquartered in West Allis, Wisconsin, and appointed the FDIC as receiver for the bank.
On Friday, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance closed Bank of Ellijay, headquartered in Ellijay, Georgia, First Commerce Community Bank, headquartered in Douglasville, Georgia, and The Peoples Bank, headquartered in Winder, Georgia, and appointed the FDIC as receiver for each bank. The failed banks were not affiliated with one another.