The dispute over the disposition of customer records held by the "Clear" airport traveler program casts a spotlight once again on the handling of consumer personal data when a business falls on hard times. In such circumstances, the desire of the debtor to preserve or maximize the value of its business assets can conflict with legitimate privacy interests of individuals who were customers of the business.

Filing a successful proof of claim is the key to unlocking a creditor's right to recover against a debtor in bankruptcy. Only in limited circumstances may a creditor recover against the debtor's estate without properly filing a proof of claim. This article addresses the various stages of filing, attacking and defending a proof of claim.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer because a lawsuit against the insured actuarial services firm was a claim "arising out of the insolvency" of the insured's client and therefore was barred by the policy's insolvency exclusion. Zurich Global Corp. U.K. v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2009 WL 2827969 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2009).

United States Supreme Court

Washington, D.C.

November 3, 2009

KWL Advertising Limited (in liquidation) ("KWL") -v- Kountouris & Kountouris, Guernsey UnreportedJudgment, 18 October 2006

The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) purported to eliminate the ability of chapter 11 debtors in possession to pay bonuses to management through Key Employee Retention Plans. However, in recognition of the fact that a real need often exists to incentivize key employees to remain with a reorganizing or liquidating business, bankruptcy courts have approved incentive plans providing for payments to insiders and other employees. Such plans must be carefully crafted to avoid the restrictions on retention bonuses post-BAPCPA.

In the matter of the Representation of Gregory Branch and Lee Manning, Joint Liquidators of AAA Holdings Limited (in liquidation) [2009]JRC110

This judgment is of interest as being the first occasion on which the Royal Court in Jersey was asked to sanction the compromise of a claim under Article 170 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the "Companies Law").

Bisson -v- Barker, P. Bish, H. Bish and Viscount 2008 JLR N[46]

This decision addresses the court's powers to order the winding up of a company on just and equitable grounds pursuant to Article 155 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991.
The company in question (the "Company") had operated two businesses in the Island. Relations between certain of the shareholders, involved in the management of the two businesses, broke down, such that it became impossible for them to continue to work together.

The Viscount

A federal district court in Delaware, applying New York law, has affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion.Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2392882 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2009).

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, applying New York law, has held that an insured did not violate an insurance policy's cooperation clause when it agreed, without providing advance notice to the insurer, to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay with respect to certain personal injury actions filed against it. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Grace Indus., Inc., 2009 WL 2222369 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009).