Ambac Financial Group Inc., parent of the troubled bond insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., said Monday that it is pursuing the restructuring of its debt with a group of debt holders through a pre-packaged bankruptcy filing. The Company added that if it is unable to reach a debt restructuring agreement, it will file for bankruptcy by the end of this year. The Company's statement can be read by clicking here.

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, the legal system continues to sort out rights and obligations of financial market participants. This is especially true for participants in the over-the-counter derivatives markets.

The tremendous growth of that largely unregulated market has been accompanied by the development of sophisticated contractual frameworks and specific bankruptcy legislation expressly intended to reduce uncertainty around the amount and type of claims that could ultimately be asserted by market participants following bankruptcy of a derivative counterparty.

T he recent surge in activity in the claims trading market in the wake of Lehman Brothers and other high-profile bankruptcies has created a backlog of open trades and heightened price volatility. This is a perilous combination. The lack of standardized trading documentation and uniform trading conventions, as well as the dramatic influx of new counterparties into the claims market, are factors that have contributed to longer settlement timeframes and increased uncertainty in the market.

It is reported in the press that the PWC administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Limited (LBIE), the London-based arm of the Lehman bank, are to appeal the recent Court of Appeal ruling relating to the distribution of segregated client funds. The first instance judge held that those clients of LBIE whose funds should have been segregated, but were not, were not entitled to share in the pot of client money. This follows normal trust law. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, on the basis of its construction of the client money rules.

The Insolvency Service issued a consultation paper in July 2010 on proposals for a restructuring moratorium.

This follows a previous consultation paper titled Encouraging Company Rescue, issued in June 2009, which outlined three proposals:

A Maryland bankruptcy court has declared that Side A benefits under a D&O policy are not property of the bankrupt estate, with the result that two former executives who have been accused of making illegal payments and diverting funds from their former employer to start a new venture may be able to recoup certain defense costs. In re: TMST, Inc. f/k/a Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., et al., Docket No. 09-17787 (Bankr.D.Md. Aug. 17, 2010).

Just as this issue of the Insurance and Reinsurance Review was going to press, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the appeal in CRC Credit Fund Ltd & Ors v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) & Ors (reported at [2010] EWCA Civ 917) against the decision of Mr. Justice Briggs, reported in our March 2010 issue.

In Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 917 the Court of Appeal considered the first instance judgment of Mr Justice Briggs on the operation of the Client Money Rules (CASS) in relation to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(LBIE).

A federal judge has ruled that directors and officers of a company in bankruptcy proceedings may continue to access an eroding liability policy to cover their defense costs. The court based its decision on a close examination of the policy language, and alternatively held that the individual directors and officers had shown they were entitled to relief from the automatic stay. In re: Downey Financial Corp., No. 08-bk-13041 (CSS) (Bankr.D.Del. May 7, 2010).

In our Distressed Investor Alert dated December 23, 2009, we wrote that Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, had returned to the public eye in light of the controversial revisions to Rule 2019 (“Revised Rule 2019”)1 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the "Rules Committee").