A number of activities of potential significance have occurred in the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act:

Surplus Lines Regulation:

Frontier Insurance, in rehabilitation, filed proofs of claim following the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Black, Davis & Shue Agency. The claims related to captive reinsurance program with Frontier. In turn, Westport Insurance, which had issued a professional liability insurance policy to BDS, objected to Frontier’s claims, asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Frontier moved to dismiss those objections, or in the alternative, for a stay pending a ruling on BDS’s own objections to Frontier’s claims.

In a suit between a bankruptcy trust established to resolve a defunct corporation’s asbestos-related personal injury liabilities and the corporation’s excess liability insurer that had denied coverage to the trust in connection with the asbestos claims, a court resolved various attorney client privilege and work product protection issues. The insurer had sought various documents related to the handling of the underlying asbestos claims by the trust, among others.

In response to a rehabilitation plan for Delaware insurance company Manhattan Re proposed by its receiver, American Motorists Insurance Company (a reinsurer of Manhattan Re) filed objections with the Delaware Court of Chancery. AMICO argued that the plan should be rejected because the receiver improperly intended to dispose of certain cash holdings that AMICO claimed constituted cash collateral under its reinsurance agreements with the company.

Following removal to federal district court of an action against AIG, defendants petitioned to refer the case to the district’s bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs’ claims arose out of a reinsurance arrangement between AIG and non-party The Robert Plan Corporation, who were engaged in the automobile insurance business. After a dispute regarding administration of the reinsurance treaties, plaintiffs – “family members and former shareholders” of TRP – allege TRP agreed to accept a certain sum as payment pursuant to AIG’s allegedly fabricated representations about its loss reserves.

Everest Reinsurance Company intervened in the liquidation proceedings of Midland Insurance Company, and moved to have the anti-suit injunction vacated, in order to allow it to participate in the claims settlement process, and to interpose defenses. The trial court denied the motion, and Everest appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding Everest’s defenses were premature, as none of the relevant claims had yet been approved, and because adequate procedures existed for it to interpose defenses later in the process.

Lexington Insurance Company participated in a tower of coverage for Dresser Industries, a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products that was forced into bankruptcy by the multi-billion dollar exposure it faced arising from product liability litigation against it. In the context of the bankruptcy proceeding, Dresser commenced an insurance coverage action against its various liability insurers.

For some years, companies in the United Kingdom have utilized a statutory process called solvent schemes of arrangement. These schemes amount to what in the United States is called a “cram down” voluntary reorganization of financially distressed, but solvent, debtors. They impose upon creditors reductions in the amount owed to them outside the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Rhode Island adopted a similar statutory scheme, which became effective in 2004.

Timeliness:

Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. v. City of Akron, Case Nos. 25642, 25725 (Ohio Ct. App. July 20, 2011) (affirming confirmation of award; panel properly found “good cause” for delay in seeking confirmation; rule providing one year to seek confirmation deemed not a statute of limitations).

Partiality:

An Illinois circuit court entered an order for the liquidation of Reinsurance Company of America based upon a finding of insolvency. The court appointed Michael T. McRaith, Illinois Director of Insurance, as liquidator, vesting him with broad powers to take action as required to serve the interests of RCA, its policyholders, beneficiaries, creditors, and the public. RCA’s sole stockholder consented to the entry of the order.