It is reported in the press that the PWC administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Limited (LBIE), the London-based arm of the Lehman bank, are to appeal the recent Court of Appeal ruling relating to the distribution of segregated client funds. The first instance judge held that those clients of LBIE whose funds should have been segregated, but were not, were not entitled to share in the pot of client money. This follows normal trust law. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, on the basis of its construction of the client money rules.

The Insolvency Service issued a consultation paper in July 2010 on proposals for a restructuring moratorium.

This follows a previous consultation paper titled Encouraging Company Rescue, issued in June 2009, which outlined three proposals:

A Maryland bankruptcy court has declared that Side A benefits under a D&O policy are not property of the bankrupt estate, with the result that two former executives who have been accused of making illegal payments and diverting funds from their former employer to start a new venture may be able to recoup certain defense costs. In re: TMST, Inc. f/k/a Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., et al., Docket No. 09-17787 (Bankr.D.Md. Aug. 17, 2010).

Just as this issue of the Insurance and Reinsurance Review was going to press, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the appeal in CRC Credit Fund Ltd & Ors v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) & Ors (reported at [2010] EWCA Civ 917) against the decision of Mr. Justice Briggs, reported in our March 2010 issue.

In Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 917 the Court of Appeal considered the first instance judgment of Mr Justice Briggs on the operation of the Client Money Rules (CASS) in relation to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(LBIE).

A federal judge has ruled that directors and officers of a company in bankruptcy proceedings may continue to access an eroding liability policy to cover their defense costs. The court based its decision on a close examination of the policy language, and alternatively held that the individual directors and officers had shown they were entitled to relief from the automatic stay. In re: Downey Financial Corp., No. 08-bk-13041 (CSS) (Bankr.D.Del. May 7, 2010).

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut recently dismissed a customer suit against an insurer, based upon its determination that all of the underlying claims were excluded by the policy’s Insolvency Exclusion.1 Associated Community Bancorp, Inc., et al. v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., et al.

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the avoidance of nearly $2 million in postpetition payments made by debtor Delco Oil, Inc. (the "Debtor") to its petroleum supplier Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC ("Marathon").[1] The Eleventh Circuit held that funds received by Marathon from the Debtor constituted cash collateral that the Debtor had spent without the permission of either its secured lender, CapitalSource Finance ("CapitalSource"), or the bankruptcy court and, therefore, could be avoided under sections 549(a) and 363(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The UK Government has announced a consultation on proposals to strengthen the administration regime for insurers, in particular to improve the protection and payment of benefits for persons insured with companies facing financial difficulties and addressing gaps in the administration regime for insurers as compared with the liquidation regime. The proposals include:

1. applying to administration the existing rules for valuing insurance contracts in liquidation; and

2. revising the objectives of administration in insurance company cases by: