In In re Rodriguez, No. 09-2724 (3rd Cir. Dec 23, 2010), a three-judge panel for the Third Circuit considered whether an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code prevented a mortgage servicer from accounting for a pre-petition shortage on a mortgage escrow account in its post-petition calculation of the bankrupt debtors’ future monthly escrow payments. The majority held that the bankruptcy stay did prohibit such conduct by the loan servicer.

The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.

The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.

In St. Hill v. Tribeca Lending Corp., Case No. 09-2214, 2010 WL 2997724 (3rd Cir. Dec. 8, 2010), the Third Circuit showed that, in determining whether the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) applied to a credit transaction, it would look beyond obvious facts to ascertain a transaction's "primary purpose."

Insolvency procedures involving companies are complex and generally take a long time to complete. There is plenty of jargon which adds to the confusion, whereas all that an unsecured creditor usually wants to know is how to make a claim for the monies owed to him by the company, to whom the claim should be made, how long it will take to decide the claim and whether there is a possibility of recovering any monies from a company which is obviously experiencing financial difficulties.

The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.

In the continuing uncertainty of the current economic climate, and with a tough financial regime introduced by the new government, landlords may still find themselves faced with an insolvent tenant.

The law has for years tried to grapple with the Gordian Knot between protecting a debtor’s assets for realisation and distribution to his creditors and protecting third parties who enter into transactions with the debtor after the bankruptcy process has been initiated, completely unaware of that process.

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court closed a statutory loophole that permitted debtors to use a wholly owned limited liability company (LLC) to put their assets beyond the reach of their judgment creditors. In Olmstead v. FTC, Case No. SC08-1009 (Fla. June 24, 2010), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a court may order a judgment debtor to surrender all right, title, and interest in the debtor's single-member Florida limited liability company to satisfy an outstanding judgment.

On April 7, 2010, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation declared Northern Capital Insurance Company, a Florida-based property insurer, to be “insolvent and in hazardous financial condition.” The company had been under the administrative supervision of the Office of Insurance Regulation since May 29, 2009. The company is expected to be placed into receivership and all of its policies are expected to be cancelled shortly after the entry of an order of liquidation.

The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has placed Magnolia Insurance Company under administrative supervision, finding that the company was in an unsound condition. Under terms of a December 14, 2009 consent order, the company will not be able to issue or renew any policies without permission from the regulator. Magnolia’s President, H. James Irl, has resigned and is prohibited from exercising any managerial control. The consent order also required the company to notify policyholders and agents that if they choose to obtain coverage from Magnolia, they do so at their own risk.