Applying California law, a California appellate court has held, in an unpublished opinion, that a judgment for reimbursement against an insured law firm was properly amended to name the sole equity partner of that law firm in light of his “pervasive” involvement in the underlying litigation and coverage litigation and his direction of such litigation in light of the fact that he knew the law firm was dissolved and had no assets.  Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. L.M. Ross Law Group LLP, 2012 WL 6555545 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2012). 

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has concluded that it should exercise jurisdiction under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the availability of coverage for a written demand and has held that the related coverage action should not be stayed in favor of potential future underlying litigation between the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the insureds because the outcome of the coverage litigation would not be dependent on resolution of disputed facts in such a future action.  Progressiv

Is a bankrupt pledgor legally bound to fulfill its promise to pledge a gift; or will a nonprofit have a successful claim against a pledgor if there is a subsequent failure to make payment because of a bankruptcy filing? A district court in Arizona recently held that St. Joseph's, a nonprofit hospital, did not have an enforceable claim in Bashas' Inc.'s bankruptcy for Bashas' $50,000 charitable pledge because of Bashas' bankruptcy. In re Bashas' Inc., 2012 WL 5289501 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2012).

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Texas law, has held that a settlement agreement resolving coverage litigation released the insurer’s obligation for defense costs for certain claims tendered for coverage under a subsequent policy.  Nat’l Heritage Found., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 5331570 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2012).

One of the most powerful tools a chapter 11 debtor has is the ability to assume or reject executory contracts under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In bankruptcy parlance, when a debtor “rejects” an executory contract, it is considered as though the debtor breached the agreement as of the date it filed for bankruptcy and sheds the debtor’s obligation to perform under the rejected contract.  The non-debtor party receives a claim for damages arising from the debtor’s breach; however, in many cases, it will be worth only pennies on the dollar.  The converse of rejection is

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy.  The court stated that under these circumstances “the issue of whether the policies are property of the bankruptcy estate is irrelevant.”  In re TierOne Corp., 2012 WL 4513554 (Bankr. D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2012).

Explaining the Subsequent New Value and Contemporaneous Exchange Defenses to Avoidable Preferences

Avoidable Preferences

The bankruptcy code allows a debtor, trustee or other estate representative to recover certain payments or other transfers (such as judgment liens and attachments) to creditors made within 90 days of the date a bankruptcy case was filed.

A Georgia bankruptcy court has held that notwithstanding the discharge of an individual in his individual bankruptcy proceeding, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may file suit against the individual as a former officer of a failed bank so long as the applicable D&O policy covers defense costs and the FDIC’s recovery is limited to insurance proceeds.  In re Hayden, 2012 WL 3597422 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. July 6, 2012).

In a recent decision authored by Chief Judge Easterbrook, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, Docket No. 11-3920 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012)) held that the licensee of a trademark does not necessarily lose the right to use the licensed marks when a debtor-licensor rejects the underlying license agreement in its bankruptcy case.  In so holding, the Court rejected a contrary decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that, under California law, claims for restitutionary relief are uninsurable as a matter of law. Dobson v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., et al., 2012 WL 2708392 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2012). Additionally, the court held that individual insureds breached a policy’s no-voluntary payment provision by settling an underlying claim without insurer consent and that the insureds’ breach was not excused by the carrier’s failure to advance defense costs.