Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., which addressed the circumstances in which a breach of fiduciary duty judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

On April 29, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal of the Second Circuit's decision dismissing, as equitably moot, appeals arising out of the bankruptcy of Charter Communications and let stand the opinion in In re Charter Communications, Inc., 691 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2012). As a result, the application of the equitable mootness doctrine, as it applies to bankruptcy appeals, will continue to vary among jurisdictions.

The general rule is that an IRA is exempt from the claims of creditors. Indeed, the Federal Bankruptcy Code provides in Sections 522(b)(3)(C) and 522(d)(12) that a retirement plan, including an IRA and a Roth IRA, is an exempt asset in bankruptcy. However in Green v. Pershing L.L.C., N.D. Okla., No. 4:12-cv-00296-CVE-FHM, 10/22/12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that the plan sponsor was not liable for turning over Mr. Green’s entire IRA to the IRS in response to the Notice of Levy and demand the IRS served on Pershing L.L.C. (“Pershing”).

Applying Minnesota law, a federal district court has held that, where an entity’s principal shareholder was insolvent, but the entity was not, the individual’s insolvency could not be attributed to the entity for purposes of establishing Side A coverage for “Non-Indemnifiable Loss.” Zayed v. Arch Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1183952 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2013). The court further held that allegations of fraudulent inducement did not trigger an exclusion for claims “arising from” contractual liability, but that the claim was uninsurable as matter of law.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has held that a settlement agreement between the claimant and policyholder satisfies Connecticut’s direct action statute’s requirement regarding the need for an unsatisfied judgment. Tucker v. American International Group, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-1499, 2013 WL 1294476 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2013). Accordingly, the court permitted the claimant’s suit against the carrier to proceed.

Official committees of unsecured creditors (Committees) serve a vital role in protecting the rights of the general unsecured creditors during a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. 

Over recent years in this economic climate, it has been increasingly common for distressed companies to be sold in an effort to rescue the entity. On first blush, this seems a relatively simple exercise although care is required to ensure that no unexpected tax charges arise, especially if there is restructuring of the debt. The taxation rules governing the end of business life are varied and complex and the sooner that thought is given to taxation in respect of the insolvent company the better this will be for the seller, the remaining group and for any buyer.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that it had subject matter jurisdiction over a bankruptcy trustee’s adversary proceeding against the bankrupt entity’s insurer because the policy and policy proceeds were part of the policyholder’s bankruptcy estate.  EMS Financial Services, LLC. v. Federal Ins. Co., 2013 WL 64755 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.  Jan. 4, 2013).

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