Ambac Financial Group Inc., parent of the troubled Wisconsin-domiciled bond insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief on November 8, 2010. As was alluded to in our blog post last week, Ambac has been unable to raise additional capital or come to terms with its debt holders. Additionally, while Ambac had originally sought to enter bankruptcy as part of a prepackaged agreement, this too failed. Ambac’s bankruptcy filing comes amid a recent disclosure it made in a filing with the U.S.

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.

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).

Typically under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) when a debtor brings an application to extend the stay period, the court will grant the extension, so long as the applicant debtor is acting in good faith and with due diligence. In the vast majority of such extension applications the debtor has the support of the court appointed Monitor. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case Re Dura Automotive Systems (Canada) Ltd.

Abitibi

In Capital One v. Solehdin,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized judgments of a Louisiana bankruptcy court and held that they were enforceable in Ontario. The judgments were summary judgments against guarantors under their respective guarantees. The decision is significant – it is one of the first cases where guarantors challenged the recognition and enforcement of such judgments of a foreign bankruptcy court on the basis that the foreign bankruptcy court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the judgments.