In In re Nilsson, 129 Nev. Adv. 101 (December 26, 2013), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court:

When the final version of the Omnibus II Directive comes into force, it will amend the Solvency II Directive so that it includes a sunrise clause, a phasing-in clause, and a run-off and restructuring exemption, as well as significant reporting and other transitional measures. It will also allow or require the European Commission and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) to adopt “regulatory technical standards”,“implementing technical standards” and “comply or explain Guidelines”.

The English Court has devised a new route to impose liability on a company's UBO who strips assets from the company leaving creditors to claim in its insolvency. UBOs feeling comfortable about the security of their corporate veil after the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest^[1], will need to look carefully at this recent decision, which may be applied in other jurisdictions with corporate laws based on English law, such as BVI and Cyprus.

If all goes as planned, the Uniform Law Commission will finalize and promulgate a model act dealing with the appointment and powers of commercial real estate receivers at some point in 2015.  Last month, the Drafting Committee for this model act met in Minneapolis, MN to discuss and revise the latest draft.

English courts may, when making ex parte (without notice) orders in a court-appointed receivership, include a final order that the defendant pays the costs incurred in obtaining the order notwithstanding that it was not notified of the application for the order.

The UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has been developing its Early Warning Indicators (EWIs) for Solvency II internal model firms for more than a year.  From September 2013, it will expect these firms to:

Under Arizona law, does a secured creditor need to file a deficiency action within 90 days after a trustee’s sale to preserve the unsecured portion of its claim in a bankruptcy case? Or is filing (or amending) a proof of claim sufficient? Two recent cases out of Arizona provide conflicting answers.

The New Year seems to be starting with a bang for the ILS industry.  On January 23rd, KKR announced it had taken a 24.9% stake in Nephila.  Earlier in the month Validus reported a $400 million capital raise to fund investments in collateralized reinsurance and ILS.  In a transaction on which Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP advised Transatlantic Re, Transatlantic Re in December acquired a minority interest in Pillar Capital Management and announced a strategic partnership with Pillar, a manager of funds investing in collateralized reinsurance and ILS.

In Ollerenshaw and Reeh v the Financial Services Authority (the FSA), former directors of the Black and White Group Limited (in liquidation) (B&W), challenged decisions of the FSA in a reference to the Upper Tribunal.

On October 16, 2012, the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned decisions of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado that had cast doubt as to whether a lender could enforce a security interest in the proceeds from the sale of a borrower’s FCC broadcast license. The case, Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Spectrum Scan, LLC (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505 (10th Cir. Colo. Oct.