On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy, Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy, Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.

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.

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.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes.  The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that certain lawsuits brought by a bankruptcy trustee were related claims, even though they alleged unique causes of action, because they were based upon the same course of conduct.  The court also found that the trustee was pursuing claims both on behalf of the policyholder-debtor and its subsidiaries, and therefore the application of the insured versus insured exclusion was “unclear.”  Nonetheless, the court found that the individual insureds were entitled to 100% of their defense cos