Sometimes state legislatures react slowly to judge-made law and sometimes they move swiftly to correct perceived problems created by court rulings. Often, such rash legislative action is not well thought-out or properly drafted, making the solution worse than the fix. However, in Florida, within one legislative session, the Florida Legislature and governor considered and enacted a set of amendments to Florida's limited liability statute that hopefully will signal the business community that Florida knows how to pass laws that make sense.

On March 16, 2011, a Rhode Island Superior Court heard arguments on whether Rhode Island's solvent restructuring statute violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case stems from a global commutation plan developed pursuant to this statute by GTE Reinsurance Company Limited in order to settle all of its obligations under various property and casualty risks reinsured by GTE Re decades ago. Critics contend that the Rhode Island law enables policies and contracts to be modified without policyholder consent in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

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."

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.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently declined to dismiss the Chapter 11 petitions of several subsidiaries of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP) demonstrating that special purpose entities (SPEs), designed to avoid bankruptcy, can be subject to bankruptcy proceedings despite having strong cash flows, no debt defaults and "bankruptcy remote" structures.

Oil and gas producers in Texas and a handful of other states have had the comfort of believing that they held purchase money security interests against the production in the hands of first purchasers and proceeds of that production. Now, the law supporting that belief has come under fire.

In light of the continuing economic downturn, many issuers with periodic reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are or may be faced with the prospect of reorganizing or liquidating under the United States Bankruptcy Code. These issuers must file their Exchange Act reports under the strain of the bankruptcy process, which imposes practical difficulties in completing and timely filing the reports during a time when resources are limited. Can these reporting requirements be modified so that issuers can more readily satisfy them?