Readers of our December 2009 issue will recall that we wrote about the Scottish court decision on the Scottish Lion Insurance Company scheme of arrangement. Just before this issue went to press the decision of the Scottish court of appeal (the Inner House of the Court of Session) on the issue of whether “creditor democracy” would be allowed to prevail or whether unanimity was required became known.

Protecting clients’ money and assets has been a pillar of the UK financial regulatory regime. The obligation on regulated entities to “…arrange adequate protection for clients’ assets when it is responsible for them” is enshrined in Principle 10 of the Principles of Business Sourcebook of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) Handbook. The FSA has made rules to protect client money by requiring FSA regulated entities to hold such money in trust accounts (the Client Money Rules).

On February 10th, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed, in one opinion, two separate appeals arising from a company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At the outset, the Court held that a severance payment to the firm's former CEO was a fraudulent transfer. The former CEO was an insider, since he was still CEO when the severance agreement was signed, even though he was not employed when he received the actual payment. The Court held further that the company did not receive equivalent value for the severance payment.

Court Broadens Interpretation of Code Sections Invalidating Ipso Facto Contract Provisions

During the second afternoon session of the first day of the PLUS D&O Symposium, the panelists discussed the complex underwriting issues that arise when the company to be insured is insolvent, in bankruptcy, or close to bankruptcy. The panelists discussed the following topics and provided the following insights:

Scottish Lion appealed against a judgment delivered by Lord Glennie in which the petition for the proposed scheme of arrangement was dismissed (see our previous blog entries http://www.insurereinsure.com/BlogHome.aspx?entry=1910 and http://www.insurereinsure.com/BlogHome.aspx?entry=1985).

In a significant ruling with potentially wide-reaching implications, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Securities Act of 1933 causes of action (Sections 11, 12, and 15) against McGraw Hill and Moody's (the "Rating Agencies") in In re: Lehman Brother Mortgage Backed Securities Litigation.

On January 28th, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee had actual notice of an unrecorded refinanced mortgage when the bankruptcy petition was electronically filed simultaneously with schedules listing the mortgage as a secured debt. The Court held that the trustee lacked actual notice. The Court found that the filing of the petition was a separate event from the filing of the schedules. The trustee was therefore a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and under state bona fide purchaser law, the trustee could avoid the unrecorded mortgage.

On January 22nd, the FDIC and the Bank of England announced their agreement to a memorandum of understanding, expanding their cooperation when they act as resolution authorities in resolving troubled deposit-taking financial institutions with activities in the United States and United Kingdom. FDIC Press Release.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency approved the first use of a "shelf charter" for the acquisition of a failed bank, allowing Bond Street Bank, National Association, to acquire a Florida bank that was placed in receivership on January 22nd. The "shelf charter" is a mechanism that involves the granting of preliminary approval to investors for a national bank charter. The charter remains inactive until the investor group is in a position to acquire a troubled institution.