The Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force on 6 April 2017 and seek to modernise the insolvency process. These changes were, in part, brought about by the changes to insolvency law and practice as a result of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 ("the Act"). Now is therefore a good time to take stock of the other key changes brought about by the Act that were anticipated to impact on D&O claims.

A director who breaches the obligations and duties imposed on him by his office may be liable to compensate the company for breach of duty, may incur personal liability for the company’s debts, may also face criminal or civil penalties and may be disqualified from acting as a director. The position of the company director has never been the subject of more scrutiny than it is today.

On February 3, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied review of a significant decision by the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, that limits a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by creditors against directors of an insolvent corporation under California law. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle, et al., 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (2009). California has now joined Delaware in holding that directors do not owe creditors a fiduciary duty, even when the corporation is operating in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”

On April 20, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to discuss public policy issues raised by last month’s report of court-appointed bankruptcy examiner for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Lehman Brothers), Mr. Anton R. Valukas. The Committee heard testimony from the following witnesses:

Panel One:

On May 11, the Board of Directors of the FDIC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “NPR”) proposing a rule which would govern the treatment by the FDIC, as conservator or receiver of a failed insured depository institution (a “Bank”), of financial assets previously transferred by such Bank in a securitization or participation transaction. The proposed rule would create a safe harbor to confirm legal isolation of these financial assets if certain conditions are satisfied.

 The failure of an FDIC-insured commercial bank, savings association or industrial loan company (collectively referred to as a “bank”) is traumatic and economically devastating to both stakeholders in the institution, as well as the local economy served by that entity.

1. Introduction

As a result of the failure of over 200 banks and savings institutions in 2009—and the likelihood of 300 or more failures in the foreseeable future—the banking industry may be faced with another tsunami of litigation brought by the FDIC alleging liability against officers and directors for the failure of their respective institutions.

On May 17, the FDIC issued a proposed rule that would require certain insured depository institutions to submit a contingent resolution plan outlining how they could be separated from their parent structures and wound down in an orderly and timely manner. Institutions with assets greater than $10 billion that are subsidiaries of a holding company with total assets of more than $100 billion would be subject to this proposal.

On April 23, the FDIC published additional Q&As on the Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions (“Policy Statement”) issued in September 2009. The Q&As clarify that there is no requirement that investors must have held their ownership for a specific amount of time.

Today, the Board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took the following actions: