Indiana Code Section 32-28-3-9, often referred to as the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) Statute, provides a means for subcontractors, equipment lessors, and laborers to assert a claim against a project owner for amounts owed for labor and material on a construction project. Essentially, the PLN Statute provides a means to assert a lien against funds the owner would otherwise pay to a general contractor, as contrasted to asserting a mechanic’s lien claim against real estate.

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).

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently held in a published opinion that the appointment of a receiver for the benefit of a mortgagee who agreed to subordinate its mortgages was mandatory under Indiana law. PNC Bank, Nat’l Assoc. v. LA Dev., Inc., __ N.W.2d __, 2012 WL 3156539 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2012).

Like the common law of most other states, Michigan law generally grants to a court-appointed receiver a first priority claim in the receivership proceeding for payment of the receiver’s fees and expenses incurred in that proceeding. See, e.g., In re Dissolution of Henry Smith Floral Co., 260 Mich. 299, 244 N.W. 480 (1932); Cohen v. Cohen, 125 Mich. App. 206, 335 N.W.2d 661 (1983).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan recently held in a published opinion that no statutory or common law landlord’s lien exists under Michigan law. Rather, in order for a landlord to assert a valid lien on the personal property of its tenant, the tenant must have consensually agreed to grant a security interest in the property and the landlord must have perfected such interest in accordance with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. In re Kentwood Pharmacy, LLC, ___ B.R. ___, 2012 WL 2899383 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. July 17, 2012).

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.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the rejection of a trademark license by the trustee did not abrogate the licensee’s rights under a prepetition agreement to use the debtor’s trademark. Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, __F.3d __, 2012 WL 2687939 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012). The Seventh Circuit decision is contrary to a prior decision by the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that a Liquidation Trustee and a Litigation Trustee (the Trustees) did not have standing to object to the disbursal of policy proceeds in an insurer’s interpleader action because they had no existing claims or realistic potential claims for coverage under the policy. Federal Insurance Co. v. DBSI, Inc., 2012 WL 2501090 (Bankr. D. Del. June 27, 2012).

Applying Georgia law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia has voided a surplus lines policy on the grounds that the insured, a purported hedge fund management firm, concealed that it was operating a Ponzi scheme, submitted an inaccurate financial statement, and misrepresented that its investment funds were “stable.”Perkins v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2105908 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2012).

On May 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) issued an opinion with significant ramifications for law firms seeking to hire former partners from bankrupt law firms. At issue was whether, under New York partnership law, the law firms that hired former partners of Coudert Brothers LLP (Coudert), a dissolved and bankrupt law partnership, must account for profits that the former Coudert partners earned while completing work on open client matters they took with them from Coudert.