In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

The Department of Justice is changing its method of providing public notice for civil and administrative forfeitures.  The Government has traditionally published forfeiture notices in newspapers.  Instead, the Government will now post generalized notices at www.forfeiture.gov. 

The Government must provide actual notice of forfeiture proceedings to those the Government knows have claimed an interest in property to be forfeited.  In a fact pattern the Sixth Circuit characterized as "befitting a John Grisham novel," the Government dug up (literally) a fraudster’s $250,000 on a golf course.  The Government found the money in October 2009 and instituted forfeiture proceedings.  In November and December 2009, the Government posted a generalized notice of forfeiture on the internet.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) filed an objection on June 14, 2012, in the Delaware bankruptcy court proceedings of RG Steel ("Debtor"), challenging a recent sale by RG Steel's parent entity ("Parent") of a 25-percent ownership stake in the Debtor. If the sale is respected, Parent would fall outside of the Debtor's "controlled group" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), with the result that Parent may cease to have joint liability for the Debtor's unfunded pension obligations.

The Government has announced that it will be delaying the proposed changes to Conditional Fee Arrangements ("CFA") and After the Event ("ATE") Insurance, in respect of insolvency proceedings, until 2015.

Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory.  An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured.  Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr

In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu

On February 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (the “Department”) announced that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court approved its petition to liquidate First Sealord Surety Insurance. 

According to the Department's Commissioner, Michael Consedine, the Department petitioned the Commonwealth Court for a liquidation order because “First Sealord Surety is no longer able to meet its policyholder obligations or pay its debts as they come due.”

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background