When the final version of the Omnibus II Directive comes into force, it will amend the Solvency II Directive so that it includes a sunrise clause, a phasing-in clause, and a run-off and restructuring exemption, as well as significant reporting and other transitional measures. It will also allow or require the European Commission and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) to adopt “regulatory technical standards”,“implementing technical standards” and “comply or explain Guidelines”.

In In re KB Toys,¹ a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a claim that is disallowable under § 502(d)² if held by the original claimant is also disallowable in the hands of a purchaser or subsequent transferee. In other words, if a creditor sells or assigns its claim to a claims trader and the creditor later becomes liable on a preference or fraudulent transfer,³ the claim may be disallowed in the hands of the claims trader if the creditor fails to pay the amount it owes to the estate.

The English Court has devised a new route to impose liability on a company's UBO who strips assets from the company leaving creditors to claim in its insolvency. UBOs feeling comfortable about the security of their corporate veil after the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest^[1], will need to look carefully at this recent decision, which may be applied in other jurisdictions with corporate laws based on English law, such as BVI and Cyprus.

An employer that sponsors a single-employer defined benefit pension plan was acquired by a Japanese parent.  The employer entered into bankruptcy and, as part of the proceedings, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) terminated the pension plan.  The PBGC then sought in federal court to recover the amount of the unfunded liability from the Japanese parent.  The PBGC also sought payment of the termination premium designed to be payable when a reorganizing company emerges from bankruptcy and to collect that premium from the parent.  The pare

On July 24, 2013 the First Circuit Court of Appeals, applying an “investment plus” test, concluded that a Sun Capital private equity investment fund was engaged in a “trade or business” for purposes of determining whether the fund could be jointly and severally liable under ERISA for the unfunded pension withdrawal liability of the portfolio company.¹ Two Sun Capital investment funds, conveniently named Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP, (“Fund IV”) (the “Sun Funds”) collectively owned 100 percent of Scott Brass, Inc.

English courts may, when making ex parte (without notice) orders in a court-appointed receivership, include a final order that the defendant pays the costs incurred in obtaining the order notwithstanding that it was not notified of the application for the order.

The UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has been developing its Early Warning Indicators (EWIs) for Solvency II internal model firms for more than a year.  From September 2013, it will expect these firms to:

The absolute priority rule ordinarily prevents a Chapter 11 debtor from distributing any money or property to junior creditors and old equity investors unless all senior creditors have first been paid in full. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). Nevertheless, old equity investors may attempt to receive new equity in the reorganized debtor in consideration for providing new (post-bankruptcy) investments in the debtor.

The EU Court of Justice held that Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 (“Directive 2008/94”) applies to pension benefits under a supplementary pension scheme, regardless of the cause of the employer’s insolvency, and without taking into account state pension benefits. Directive 2008/94 provides that member states must protect the pension interests of retirees when an employer becomes insolvent.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied a petition for writ of certiorari by United Healthcare Insurance Company (“UHC”), which had requested judicial review of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes the State of Texas. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion had held that ERISA did not preempt state claims brought by Access Mediquip (“Access”), a medical device provider, against UHC for negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code (see Access Mediquip L.L.C. v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co., No.