Perhaps prompted by revelations that one or more Connecticut-based insurers failed to notify individuals or report known data security incidents or breaches until weeks, or even months, after the data had been lost or stolen, the state's Insurance Commissioner has issued stringent new reporting obligations applicable to all entities regulated by the Connecticut Department of Insurance (CDI), including, for example, insurers, agents, brokers, adjusters, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider networks, discount health plans and certain consultants and utilization review companie
Summary and implications
The Government is proposing to give struggling companies a protected moratorium against enforcement action, to help them to negotiate a restructuring deal with their creditors.
The moratorium would be available to all companies which are preparing a CVA or scheme of arrangement. At present, a moratorium is only available to small companies* who are proposing a CVA.
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 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.
If an administration order is made and a pending winding-up petition is subsequently dismissed, the costs of that petition are payable as an expense of the administration.1
In our September 2009 Pensions update we reported on proposals to make changes to the employer debt regime aimed at assisting corporate restructurings. The final regulations have now been published and come into force on 6 April 2010. Under these provisions, where there is a corporate restructuring and one employer’s assets and pension liabilities are transferred to another, then as long as the prescribed steps (set out below) are followed, no statutory employer debt will arise. Employers relying on an easement will not be expected to seek clearance from the Pensions Regulator.
The Government has announced that it will shortly begin a consultation on important new measures designed to boost confidence in the ‘pre-pack’ administration procedure.
The PPF policy statement can be found here
Following its November 2009 consultation, the PPF has published a statement confirming its policy on measuring insolvency risk for the 2011/12 levy. Schemes and employers should act quickly before the 30 and 31 March 2010 deadlines.
The policy statement confirms that for the 2011/12 levy year, the PPF will adopt new policies, including:
In parallel with the decision to allow the UK government to intervene in the liquidation of Bradford & Bingley, the European Commission has approved measures taken to facilitate the restructuring of Dunfermline Building Society. After the business encountered major financial difficulties, the UK Government intervened to facilitate an approved restructuring plan under which the building society’s impaired assets were split from its profitable business and put into administration.
Summary and implications
The court has clarified that administrators must pay rent as an expense of the administration when they use property.
The High Court has recently held* that: