Applying Texas law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas has held that a primary insurer that "exhausted" its policy limits by agreeing to pay the insured's bankruptcy estate its remaining policy limits, while stipulating that a significant portion of this payment would be returned to the insurer by the estate's bankruptcy trustee, was required to reimburse the excess insurer the value of the returned payments made by the trustee. Yaquinto v. Admiral Ins. Co., Inc. (In re Cool Partners, Inc.), 2010 WL 1779668 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2010).

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, applying Connecticut law, has held that coverage under a bankers professional liability policy was precluded by the policy's insolvency exclusion where the underlying claims "arose out of" the bankruptcy of a third-party securities broker or dealer. Associated Community Bancorp, Inc. v. The Travelers Cos., 2010 WL 1416842 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2010). The court also held that coverage was barred by the professional services exclusion of the management liability coverage part of the policy.

On March 22, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a lower court decision which held that secured creditors do not have an absolute right to credit bid at an auction of assets conducted in connection with a bankruptcy reorganization plan. The court ruled that secured creditors are only entitled to the "indubitable equivalent" of their claims under a specific subsection of the Bankruptcy Code. The "indubitable equivalent" could be the cash value of the assets upon which the creditor holds liens as determined through an auction process.

It is a harrowing scenario for any seller of goods: a trading-partner files for bankruptcy and leaves the seller with thousands, even millions of dollars in unpaid invoices. In many instances, some of these goods were delivered only days before the bankruptcy filing. While a creditor may be able to assert reclamation rights, those rights are often difficult to enforce in bankruptcy and may be subordinate to the interests of an all assets lender.

In a recent opinion issued in the case In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-4266 (3rd Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured lenders do not have an absolute right to credit bid on all asset sales under section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. This opinion could have a profound effect on the manner in which debtors seek approval of a sale pursuant to a plan of reorganization and, potentially, a chilling effect on the willingness of lenders to extend credit in the future.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of a motion by a debtor’s sole director to modify the automatic stay to allow payment of defense costs under the A-side coverage of the debtor’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. In re MILA, Inc., 2010 WL 455328 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010).

Although 2010 is still young, the bankruptcy courts have been busy interpreting Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure as it applies to ad hoc groups of creditors in bankruptcy cases. A ruling issued on February 4, 2010, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LL, Case No. 09- 11204 (Bankr. E.D.Pa.) found Rule 2019 does not apply to ad hoc groups. The score is now tied at three to three.

PETER J. SOLOMON COMPANY, L.P., v. ONEIDA, LTD., CASE NO. 09-CIV-2229, 2010 WL 234827 (S.D.N.Y. JAN. 22, 2010)

The term “stalking horse” originally referred to a horse or type of screen a hunter used to conceal his position from intended prey. Today the term takes a new meaning altogether thanks to its application in the bankruptcy context. A modern day “stalking horse” is an interested buyer of a debtor’s assets who is offered incentives for being the first to announce its intent. As the initial bidder, the stalking horse sets the minimum purchase price and other terms of the transaction.

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas, applying Kansas law, has held that a D&O policy issued to a bank was not automatically canceled or terminated when the FDIC was appointed as the bank’s receiver but that coverage under the policy ceased. Columbian Fin. Corp. v. BancInsure, Inc., 2009 WL 4508576 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2009). The court concluded that although coverage ceased upon the appointment of the FDIC as receiver, the insureds could report claims at any time prior to the expiration of the policy.