The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana has held that an insured versus insured exclusion does not apply to preclude coverage for claims brought by a duly appointed bankruptcy trustee against an insolvent corporation’s directors and officers. Central Louisiana Grain Cooperative v. Vanderlick, 2012 WL 293173 (Bankr. W.D. La. Jan. 31, 2012).
The last several years have seen bankruptcy filings from prominent retail chains such as Borders, Circuit City, Blockbuster, Movie Gallery and Ritz Camera. Many of these cases have resulted in liquidation. For commercial landlords, retail bankruptcy cases present a number of potentially damaging issues, including non-payment of rent, assignment of the lease to an unworthy tenant, vacant space in an otherwise popular location and going-out-of business sales.
In late 2011, bondholders in the bankruptcy case of power company Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy) moved for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate certain transactions that occurred immediately prior to the filing of Dynegy's bankruptcy petition. The transactions at issue involve the alleged transfer of millions of dollars in assets to Dynegy's parent company (a non-debtor) approximately two months prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Many experienced business people are now familiar with the process by which their valid and successful debt collection efforts result in liability under the preference provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
New amendments to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 were recently adopted in an attempt to clarify requirements surrounding file 2019 statements in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Prior to the amendments, which were adopted Dec. 1, 2011, Rule 2019 was often applied in an inconsistent haphazard manner resulting in a great deal of uncertainty regarding who was required to file the statement and under what circumstances that statement was required to be filed.
The Original Rule 2019
If you are a creditor of a Delaware limited liability company and wish to pursue derivative claims on behalf of an insolvent company against the company’s present or former managers based on breaches of fiduciary duties, you may be out of luck. The Delaware Supreme Court recently decided in CML V LLC v. Bax, 2011 Del. LEXIS 480 (Sept. 2, 2011), that creditors’ rights against limited liability companies differ from those against corporations.
A federal district court, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that the insolvency exclusion in an insurance agency’s professional liability policy excused the insurer from the duty to defend the agency in lawsuits alleging that it had caused employee benefit plans that it created to be underfunded. ACE Capital Limited v. Morgan Waldon Ins. Management, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-128, 2011 WL 5914275 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011).
On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally. At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code, § 365(n), which limits a debtor's right to reject intellectual property licenses in bankruptcy and generally provides that, in the event of a rejection, the licensee may elect either to treat the license as terminated or retain its rights for the duration of the license.
On Oct. 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally. At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code - § 365(n).
The City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania—the state's capital—filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on Wednesday October 12, 2011, indicating that it owed fewer than 50 creditors more than $545 million.