Publishing Company in Pleasantville, New York In re Reader’s Digest Sales and Services, Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) Case no. 09-09548
In response to an imminent Order of Liquidation against the Kemper Insurance Companies, we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyholder collateral; and (v) planning a response to the Kemper liquidation.1
I. FINANCIAL REGULATION OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
Introduction
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled recently on the validity of “gift plans” – plans of reorganization under which a senior creditor “gifts” assets to a junior creditor or equity holder.1 In In re Journal Register Co.,2 Bankruptcy Judge Alan L. Gropper approved a plan in which secured lenders gifted a portion of their recovery to certain trade creditors, and detailed some of the important limitations on gift plans.
Evolution of the Gift Plan Doctrine
A newly released IRS letter ruling (PLR 201006003, Oct. 28, 2009) provides guidance on how a consolidated return group may obtain an ordinary loss deduction in liquidating an insolvent subsidiary. Although a write-off of worthless stock generally produces a capital loss deduction, Code Section 165(g)(3) converts these losses to ordinary deductions when they arise from a write-off of stock of an affiliated corporation.
The German Federal Civil Court (BGH) in its decision of 15 April 2010 (IX ZR 188/09) clarified the legal position of holders of preferred stock in insolvency plan proceedings.
Although courts are generally reluctant to equitably subordinate claims of non-insiders, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana recently did just that to the claims of a non-insider lender based on overreaching and self-serving conduct in Credit Suisse v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In Re Yellowstone Mt. Club, LLC), Case No. 08-61570-11, Adv. No. 09-00014 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 13, 2009).
Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).
In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).
The Facts
The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.
Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).
The Court of Appeal has recently considered the status of contingent assets within the balance sheet test for insolvency in the context of a company’s inability to pay its debts. Under Section 123 Insolvency Act 1986, a company is deemed unable to pay its debts if its assets are less than its liabilities including contingent liabilities but nothing is said about the status of contingent assets.
SUPREME COURT RULING NO. 44/2103, OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013: INSOLVENCY CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCE LEASE INSTALMENTS DEPENDS ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT
Supreme Court finds that where a finance lease agreement releases the lessor from liability for defects, credits resulting from payments due before the declaration of insolvency and for those falling due after it are insolvency credits