On May 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) issued an opinion with significant ramifications for law firms seeking to hire former partners from bankrupt law firms. At issue was whether, under New York partnership law, the law firms that hired former partners of Coudert Brothers LLP (Coudert), a dissolved and bankrupt law partnership, must account for profits that the former Coudert partners earned while completing work on open client matters they took with them from Coudert.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, under California law, that an insurer had no duty to defend an insured actuarial services firm in litigation alleging that the insured’s reserve reviews and rate level recommendations contributed to the insolvency of a medical malpractice self-insurance fund. Zurich Specialties London Limited v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2011 WL 1118463 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011).

United States Supreme Court

Washington, D.C.

November 3, 2009

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has held that an excess liability insurer had no standing to object to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtor's reorganization plan where the plan, although requiring contributions from the insurer's policyholder, was not contingent on the policyholder obtaining any funds or proceeds from its insurer. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al. v. North Am. Refractories Cos. et al., Civ. Action No. 07-1750, Bankr. Case No. 02-20198 (JFK) (W. D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2008).

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has abstained from hearing a dispute between a primary and an excess professional liability insurer related to a bankruptcy settlement based on the mandatory abstention doctrine. Royal Indemn. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., Inc., 2007 WL 4171649 (D.N.J. Nov. 19, 2007). After the insured corporation declared bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee settled claims with the insured's primary professional liability insurer.

The district court in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. v. American Capital Equipment, et al., No. 06-0891 (U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Pa. May 11, 2007), affirmed that Skinner Engine Company's insurers have standing to move to dismiss Skinner's chapter 11 bankruptcy case and to challenge its bankruptcy plan. However, the court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the insurers' motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case.

On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.

In a case illustrating the effective use of a bankruptcy examiner, the examiner appointed by the court in the North General Hospital bankruptcy case has concluded that the hospital made over $3 million in unauthorized post-bankruptcy filing payments to the detriment of unsecured creditors. Prior to its bankruptcy filing, North General Hospital and certain related corporate debtors operated a hospital in the Harlem section of Manhattan.

The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) purported to eliminate the ability of chapter 11 debtors in possession to pay bonuses to management through Key Employee Retention Plans. However, in recognition of the fact that a real need often exists to incentivize key employees to remain with a reorganizing or liquidating business, bankruptcy courts have approved incentive plans providing for payments to insiders and other employees. Such plans must be carefully crafted to avoid the restrictions on retention bonuses post-BAPCPA.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has affirmed two final orders of the bankruptcy court finding that (1) the debtor's insurers lacked standing to object to confirmation of the bankruptcy plan; (2) a channeling injunction for silica claims was appropriately included in the debtor's plan; (3) an assignment of the debtor's rights under its insurance policies to the personal injury trust was authorized by bankruptcy law; and (4) the debtor's reorganization plan was confirmable under the Bankruptcy Code. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v.