The Department of Justice is changing its method of providing public notice for civil and administrative forfeitures.  The Government has traditionally published forfeiture notices in newspapers.  Instead, the Government will now post generalized notices at www.forfeiture.gov. 

The Government must provide actual notice of forfeiture proceedings to those the Government knows have claimed an interest in property to be forfeited.  In a fact pattern the Sixth Circuit characterized as "befitting a John Grisham novel," the Government dug up (literally) a fraudster’s $250,000 on a golf course.  The Government found the money in October 2009 and instituted forfeiture proceedings.  In November and December 2009, the Government posted a generalized notice of forfeiture on the internet.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) filed an objection on June 14, 2012, in the Delaware bankruptcy court proceedings of RG Steel ("Debtor"), challenging a recent sale by RG Steel's parent entity ("Parent") of a 25-percent ownership stake in the Debtor. If the sale is respected, Parent would fall outside of the Debtor's "controlled group" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), with the result that Parent may cease to have joint liability for the Debtor's unfunded pension obligations.

Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory.  An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured.  Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr

On May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court resolved a split among the federal courts of appeals on an important bankruptcy issue, agreeing with arguments Morrison & Foerster advanced on behalf of Amalgamated Bank. In a unanimous opinion in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank,¹ the Court held that a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization that provides for a sale of a secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens must afford that secured creditor the right to credit bid.

On February 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (the “Department”) announced that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court approved its petition to liquidate First Sealord Surety Insurance. 

According to the Department's Commissioner, Michael Consedine, the Department petitioned the Commonwealth Court for a liquidation order because “First Sealord Surety is no longer able to meet its policyholder obligations or pay its debts as they come due.”

On September 7, 2011, the FDIC announced the launch of a new initiative aimed at encouraging small investors and asset managers to partner with larger investors to participate in the FDIC’s structured transaction sales of assets from failed institutions.

Pursuant to Section 113 of Dodd- Frank aimed at avoiding a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, the Federal Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) issued a proposed rule establishing a three-stage analysis for identifying non bank systemically important financial institutions.

The Federal Reserve announced the approval of a final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank resolution plan requirement set forth in Section 165(d) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule requires bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more and nonbank financial firms designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to annually submit resolution plans to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.

A New York State Administrative Law Judge has denied an application for costs and fees filed by a petitioner who had succeeded in substantially reducing the asserted tax liability through settlement. Matter of Frank M. Grillo, DTA No. 823237 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., Nov. 3, 2011). The decision turned on whether the position of the Department of Taxation and Finance was substantially justified, and that, in turn, depended upon whether the Department had used the correct address when it sent the Notice of Determination to the petitioner.