After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.  

The drafting changes just discussed are primarily intended to ensure that funds do not become embroiled in contractual disputes, but in a global recession more and more funds are finding themselves in disputes that threaten to end up, and sometimes do end up, before the courts. In this chapter we analyse the legal issues surrounding key matters in the current litigious environment and cover the following:  

The credit crunch has put pressure on a wide range of structures and, as a result, lenders, borrowers and other counterparties are looking more closely at the impact of possible insolvency proceedings. As Jersey companies have often been used in cross-border finance transactions, it is important to be aware of the differences between Jersey and English insolvency procedures for companies.  

What are the main Jersey insolvency procedures for a Jersey company?

These are:-  

In a client advisory sent by our office a few months ago, we described a decision in the Madoff saga in which the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) closed off a potential avenue of significant recovery for the Madoff Trustee (the Trustee) and the Ponzi scheme victims by denying the Trustee standing to pursue certain claims against feeder funds – firms that sent investors’ funds to Madof

Applying Minnesota law, a federal district court has held that, where an entity’s principal shareholder was insolvent, but the entity was not, the individual’s insolvency could not be attributed to the entity for purposes of establishing Side A coverage for “Non-Indemnifiable Loss.” Zayed v. Arch Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1183952 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2013). The court further held that allegations of fraudulent inducement did not trigger an exclusion for claims “arising from” contractual liability, but that the claim was uninsurable as matter of law.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that, under California law, claims for restitutionary relief are uninsurable as a matter of law. Dobson v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., et al., 2012 WL 2708392 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2012). Additionally, the court held that individual insureds breached a policy’s no-voluntary payment provision by settling an underlying claim without insurer consent and that the insureds’ breach was not excused by the carrier’s failure to advance defense costs.

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.

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.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of a bankruptcy plan administrator for the estate of an insured, holding that the plan administrator is entitled to recover premiums paid to an insurer after the insurer rescinded the policy. In re SONICblue Inc., 2011 WL 839401 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011). The court also held that the insurer is entitled to reimbursement for defense costs paid to the insured prior to the policy’s rescission.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which is overseeing the liquidation of the insurer in the coverage dispute, entered an order approving the insurer’s denial of coverage under an excess policy for a $20 million settlement that two individual insureds paid into a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) redress fund. The court adopted the recommendation of the referee appointed to hear the coverage dispute, who applied California law and concluded that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment following briefing and oral argument. Wiley Rein represented the insurer before the referee.