A case decided last week by the Sixth Circuit illustrates the importance of seeking bankruptcy claim policy amendments when placing D&O coverage. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Zucker (6th Cir. Jun. 20, 2017) involved the application of the insured-vs.-insured exclusion and specifically, whether the policy’s insured-vs.-insured exclusion precluded coverage for a claim brought by a company’s liquidating trust, to which the company’s claims had been assigned by the company as debtor-in-possession after the company filed for bankruptcy.

Introduction

Luxembourg recently adopted a number of legislative reforms aimed at modernising the rules applicable to commercial companies. In relation to the restructuring and insolvency of Luxembourg-based entities, Parliament is discussing the long-awaited Bill 6539 (the so-called 'Insolvency Bill').

In the meantime, a number of reforms which could affect the restructuring and insolvency of commercial companies have been adopted, including:

"The Parent Bank entered into this insurance contract with its eyes wide open and its wallet on its mind."

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.

A bill containing an entirely new Insolvency Code was presented to the House of Representatives on 20 April 2017. The need for a robust insolvency framework has received substantial attention due to the ongoing economic and financial crisis. Many European countries have recently modernised their insolvency legislation or are in the process of doing so.

In two recent decisions, both the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) and the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) concluded that certain orders entered in bankruptcy cases could not be grounds for invocation of res judicata with regard to proofs of claim that are deemed allowed. Both addressed the plain language of Section 502(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) in conjunction with relevant Bankruptcy Rules and Official Forms, and congressional intent.

On March 9, 2017, a bankruptcy court in New York became the latest to weigh in on the developing circuit court split regarding whether modification of mortgages should be permitted under 11 U.S.C.

In the framework of the digitization of the Belgian judiciary, a central Solvency Register (www.regsol.be) will be available as of 1 April 2017.

Henceforth, creditors must file their claims electronically. The register will be accessible - subject to different procedural formalities - to magistrates, including substitute judges, clerks of court and public prosecutors as well as bankrupt parties, their creditors and counsel.

In a judgment of 24 March 2017 (in Dutch), the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the longstanding requirement that for a debtor to be declared bankrupt, there need to be at least two creditors.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the District Court) recently issued an opinion in the Paul Sagendorph bankruptcy case reversing the Bankruptcy Court's holding that a debtor can force a secured creditor to take title to its collateral in complete satisfaction of the creditor's secured claim.1 In reversing the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court held that the plain language of Sections 1322(b)(9) and 1325(a)(5)(C)2 does not empower a debtor to force a secured creditor to accept title to its collateral over that creditor's objection.3