Our two-part article on non-con and true sale issues in insurance contexts continues with a deeper dive into the considerations that distinguish these issues from similar remoteness principles in a Bankruptcy Code context. In Part One, we explained some of the basics of state insurance law that bear on these issues and how these can give rise to different approaches in opinion-giving; in this Part Two, we identify some practical obstacles that arise in these kinds of contexts and opinions.

A Pennsylvania Hypothetical

Indentures and other agreements governing complex, multitiered structured debt products will typically contain a series of reserves, the adequacy of whose funding will take precedence over payments to noteholders. While the funding requirements of the reserve accounts will be set forth in the agreement, the formulation of these provisions will leave administrators considerable leeway in determining the cash maintenance levels appropriate for the various accounts. In a recent case, UMB National Association v. Airplanes Limited (S.D.N.Y.

This two-part article discusses the key concerns, from a non-consolidation and true sale perspective, that arise when an insurance company, as opposed to a bankruptcy-eligible entity, is a sponsor/seller in a securitization or similar structured finance transaction. This Part One introduces the main contrasts between non-con and true sale analysis in a traditional bankruptcy context and such analysis in an insurance-law scenario.

Unlike an opinion, an order of the court is often not from the pen of the judge. Typically, a court order is submitted to the judge after negotiation among the parties. So, when a disagreement arises among the parties regarding the interpretation of the court’s order, how does the judge who signed the order go about resolving the matter? The issue came up not long ago in Outer Harbor Terminal LLC (Bkr. D. Del. May, 5, 2017), in which Judge Laurie Silverstein of the District of  Delaware bankruptcy court was confronted with a dispute over her own final DIP order.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint seeking to avoid a transfer to the bank defendant. The transfer consisted of the Bank exercising its contractual setoff right and applying funds in the debtor’s bank account to the Bank’s claim. The transfer occurred while the bankruptcy case was dismissed. The debtor fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix

Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski

(6th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order modifying its prior sale order under Rule 60(b). The court’s original order approved a sale of estate assets but the sale agreement and the order failed to include certain contracts to be assumed and assigned to the buyer. The court finds that modification of the order was appropriate because the motion to modify the order was filed within one year of entry of the sale order and the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion after weighing the relevant factors. Opinion below.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the lender, holding the debt owed by one of the debtors would not be discharged, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The debtor disregarded the lender’s security interest in his business’s inventory, using the proceeds of the inventory for personal expenses in violation of the security agreement. The court holds that the lender failed to present sufficient evidence to except the other debtor’s (the first debtor’s spouse) debt from discharge. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditors’ objection to the debtors’ claimed homestead exemption. The property was not owned solely by the debtors, so the exemption would apply only to their partial interest in the property. The property was sold but there was no evidence as to the amount allocated to the debtors’ interest in the property. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtors: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditors: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert

(6th Cir. July 14, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtors’ motion to compel the Chapter 7 trustee to abandon their residential real property. The trustee sought to evict the debtors in order to sell the property and pay creditors. The trustee argued that because he tendered the homestead exemption payment to the debtors, eviction should be permitted. The debtors argued and presented evidence to establish that there was no equity for the estate considering the condition of the property. Opinion below.

Judge: Gilman