One week after Aegis Mortgage Corp. filed for chapter 11 in Delaware, a group of former employees filed their complaint seeking class certification over allegations that Aegis Mortgage Corporation, Aegis Wholesale Corporation and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.—all allegedly acting as their employer—violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act when they failed to give over 400 employees 60 days' notice prior to a mass termination by Aegis Mortgage on August 7, 2007.

Coping with the Insolvent Business Partner

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that no exception exists to Tennessee’s general prohibition on direct actions against an insurer, even in cases where the insured has declared bankruptcy triggering an automatic stay before a judgment in the underlying action.  Mauriello v. Great American E&S Insurance Co., 2014 WL 321921 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2014).  In so holding, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that an adequate remedy remains notwithstanding the automatic stay for a claimant to obtain a judgment against a bankrupt insured.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes.  The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.

During the current economic downturn, a number of financially distressed franchisees either have filed or may file for bankruptcy protection to restructure their financial obligations. As a result, franchisors should familiarize themselves with some bankruptcy basics before they are confronted with the situation.

What Happens If One of Our Franchisees Declares Bankruptcy?

In an unpublished summary order applying New York law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a district court's judgment finding that many of the factual allegations asserted in a complaint against the directors and officers of the bankrupt policyholder were excluded by a prior litigation exclusion, even though some of the excluded losses accrued during time periods not at issue in the prior litigation. Pereira v. Gulf Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1262954 (2d Cir. May 6, 2009).

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has reversed a bankruptcy court ruling allowing two law firms—Snyder Miller & Orton LLP (SMO) and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (MLB)—to serve as "special insurance counsel" to address insurance and insurance-coverage-litigation-related matters under the narrow special purpose standards of § 327(e). In re Thorpe Insulation Co., No. CV08-00246-DSF (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008). Citing In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that an insurer could rescind an insurance policy based on an individual's fraudulent statements that the insured company was not facing bankruptcy. Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2029063 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2007).

The economic impact of forced budget cuts from the sequester and other government funding crises—ranging from a government shutdown to the federal debt limit—and congressional gridlock place disproportionate pressure on smaller- or second tier-government contractors.  Business partners of a  financially infirm contractor must prepare for when a contract business partner, co-venturer, or teaming partner falls over the fiscal cliff and files for bankruptcy protection.  In this article, we will provide an over

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that certain lawsuits brought by a bankruptcy trustee were related claims, even though they alleged unique causes of action, because they were based upon the same course of conduct.  The court also found that the trustee was pursuing claims both on behalf of the policyholder-debtor and its subsidiaries, and therefore the application of the insured versus insured exclusion was “unclear.”  Nonetheless, the court found that the individual insureds were entitled to 100% of their defense cos