In a recent important decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trademark licensor could not use its bankruptcy to deny the rights of a licensee to use the trademark pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy agreement. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3920, decided July 9, 2012) This decision creates a conflict among the federal circuits, which often means the U.S. Supreme Court must eventually decide the issue.

One of the benefits to a corporate form of entity is the protection of shareholders from liability for obligations of the corporation. Of course, as we all know, there are still legal claims which could impose liability on a corporate shareholder for obligations of the corporation. In a recent case, a former executive of a corporation tried to assert a tortious interference claim against a majority shareholder, when it terminated severance payments that were owed to the executive. (Nation v. American Capital, Ltd., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No.

Concerned about the use of separate accounts to fund products with general account guarantees, the NAIC continues to examine these products and to consider how these products and the underlying assets should be regulated and treated for insolvency purposes.

A court affirmed the denial of W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos insurance claims against the liquidation estate of Grace’s insolvent excess-of-loss insurer, on the ground that Grace failed to submit timely “absolute” claims under New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Grace, which has been undergoing bankruptcy restructuring, had established a plan with a creditor’s committee to create a trust to pay asbestos claims.

Reliance Insurance Company in Liquidation (the “Liquidator”) petitioned a Pennsylvania state court for a declaratory judgment holding that Aramark Corporation must reimburse certain state guaranty associations (“GAs”) for claims allegedly improperly paid to Aramark and subsequently presented to the Reliance Estate by the GAs for payment. The Liquidator also sought a declaration that Aramark’s claims against the Estate should be given low priority.

An English appellate court permitted an Australian reinsurer in liquidation to enforce a judgment entered in Australian insolvency proceedings against a Lloyd’s syndicate, which had elected not to participate in the foreign proceedings. On appeal, the syndicate argued that England’s reciprocity act did not apply to foreign judgments made in insolvency proceedings, and that England’s insolvency act, which recognizes Australian courts, should be interpreted as strictly permitting only Australian choice of law, rather than the enforcement of Australian judgments.

Recently, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the request of Washington Mutual and WMI Investment Corp. (collectively the Debtors) for confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plain of Affiliated Debtors. Among a number of issues, the Bankruptcy Court determined that the valuation of a captive reinsurance subsidiary (WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company – currently in run-off), which would serve as the most valuable asset of the proposed reorganized debtor was flawed.

A number of activities of potential significance have occurred in the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act:

Surplus Lines Regulation:

Frontier Insurance, in rehabilitation, filed proofs of claim following the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Black, Davis & Shue Agency. The claims related to captive reinsurance program with Frontier. In turn, Westport Insurance, which had issued a professional liability insurance policy to BDS, objected to Frontier’s claims, asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Frontier moved to dismiss those objections, or in the alternative, for a stay pending a ruling on BDS’s own objections to Frontier’s claims.

In a suit between a bankruptcy trust established to resolve a defunct corporation’s asbestos-related personal injury liabilities and the corporation’s excess liability insurer that had denied coverage to the trust in connection with the asbestos claims, a court resolved various attorney client privilege and work product protection issues. The insurer had sought various documents related to the handling of the underlying asbestos claims by the trust, among others.