In Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ____ (June 23, 2011), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy court could not, as a constitutional matter, enter a final judgment on a counterclaim that did not arise under Title 11 or in a case under Title 11, even though 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) expressly permits it to do so. In a dispute concerning the estate of the late J. Howard Marshall II, Pierce Marshall filed a complaint in Vickie Lynn Marshall’s bankruptcy case alleging that Vickie defamed him and that such defamation claim was not dischargeable.

On July 6, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) approved a final rule (the “Final Rule”) addressing certain provisions of the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”) contained in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).1

The New York Court of Appeals decision on April 5, in the Midland Insurance Company liquidation (In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Company1) is an important affirmation of policyholder rights. In this decision, New York’s highest court held that a policyholder is entitled to a claim and policy-specific choice of law analysis in the liquidation process, rejecting the Midland liquidator’s effort to make a blanket application of New York law to Midland’s 38,000 policyholders.

In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a certificateholder of two CMBS securitization trusts (“CMBS Trusts”) had no standing to be heard in a chapter 11 case involving the borrowers under a securitized mortgage loan held by the CMBS Trusts.

On March 15, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) to implement certain orderly liquidation authority (“OLA”) provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (the “CA”) in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 227 was handed down on 7 March 2011.

On January 18, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) approved an interim final rule (“Interim Rule”), with request for comments, to implement certain provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).

According to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, a lack of bad faith is no longer a defense to court sanctions for failure to produce documents in a timely manner. That court, in In re A&M Florida Properties II, recently awarded sanctions against both a party and its counsel for the counsel’s failure to become familiar with the client’s email and data-retention policies and systems— despite the absence of any bad faith or willful delay.1

I. Introduction Readers may be familiar with the use in the UK of Schemes of Arrangement to achieve closure of insurance and reinsurance business.

I. Introduction

When entering into a reinsurance agreement, a ceding company and a reinsurer may also enter into a related reinsurance trust agreement