I. Introduction

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

Directors of California corporations have, for years, struggled to understand the scope of their fiduciary duties when a corporation is insolvent versus when a corporation is in the “zone of insolvency.” While other states (particularly Delaware) have provided some recent guidance in this area[1], the California Court of Appeal recently provided some much needed clarification – including providing comfort to the decision making processes of directors who are considering various alternatives when a corporation enters into a zone of insolvency.

In an October 13, 2009 decision involving bankrupt homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) avoided as fraudulent transfers certain liens given and debt obligations incurred by several of TOUSA’s subsidiaries to a syndicate of lenders who provided $500 million of new loans to TOUSA. In addition, the Court ordered those lenders, and others that received the proceeds of the new loans, to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to the bankrupt estates of these subsidiaries.

The recent Scottish Court Opinion on Scottish Lion’s proposed solvent scheme of arrangement,1 in which it was held that to sanction a solvent scheme there must be a “problem requiring a solution” and, in effect, unanimous creditor approval, was followed by a short hearing on Wednesday 14th October in which Lord Glennie said that he would dismiss the petition for the scheme.

On September 15, 2009, in an order read from the bench, the Honorable James M. Peck, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork, and the presiding judge in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and other associated Lehman Brothers United States entities, held a key provision of the standard ISDA Master Agreement unenforceable in a bankruptcy context.

For the fashion industry, one of the must-have, but hard to come by, items this season is a favorable refinancing deal. The recent volatility in the fashion market has reflected not just the ever-changing tastes of the cognoscenti, but also the rapidly shifting economic landscape confronting designers and retailers. The fashion industry has suffered acutely in the global financial crisis as consumers curb their spending, particularly in the luxury goods market. In fact, analysts have estimated that 12% of fashion companies will not survive the recession.  

In a decision made on August 11, 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed solvent, special purpose entity subsidiaries of a bankrupt parent company, General Growth Properties, Inc., to maintain their Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, raising several important issues related to the use of special purpose entities structured to be "bankruptcy-remote."

GGP Business Model and 2009 Bankruptcy Filings

On August 11, 2009, in a closely monitored dispute in the bankruptcy proceeding of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York rejected motions filed by several mortgage lenders to dismiss the bankruptcy filings of certain special purpose entity subsidiaries (SPEs) of GGP. In re General Growth Properties, Inc., et al., No. 09-11977, slip op. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2009).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on July 27, 2009 in Boucher v. Shaw that individual managers of a bankrupt corporation can be held liable to the corporation's former employees for unpaid wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

In Biltmore Assocs., LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2009 WL 1976071 (9th Cir.