Our two-part article on non-con and true sale issues in insurance contexts continues with a deeper dive into the considerations that distinguish these issues from similar remoteness principles in a Bankruptcy Code context. In Part One, we explained some of the basics of state insurance law that bear on these issues and how these can give rise to different approaches in opinion-giving; in this Part Two, we identify some practical obstacles that arise in these kinds of contexts and opinions.

A Pennsylvania Hypothetical

Channel 1 – Thorpe Insulation Addresses Insurer Standing to Object to Plan and Assignability of Insurance Contracts to Plan Trusts

Bottom Line:

The Bottom Line:

One of the key issues facing all public companies during the COVID-19 crisis is how and when to update necessary market disclosures relating to the risk impact of the pandemic on their business.

History has taught us that prolonged periods of market volatility increase the risks of litigation against both companies and their governing boards, and that the way in which they act now can have long-lasting effects.

Some companies may face severe solvency issues, which will lead to questions around the disclosure of the company’s financial position.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Recovery and resolution planning October 2015 1 The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau of the Hong Kong Government (FSTB) in conjunction with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), and the Insurance Authority (IA)1 on 9 October 2015 published a paper entitled An Effective Resolution Regime for Financial Institutions in Hong Kong: Consultation Response and Certain Further Issues (CP3).2 Background Following from the recent global financial crisis, the G20 tasked the Financial Stability Board (FSB) with

Investment

Direct statements

Welcome to our guide for directors and prospective directors of subsidiary companies in Austria.

On May 1, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Federal–Mogul Global, Inc. confirmed that anti-assignment provisions in a debtor’s insurance liability policies are preempted by the Bankruptcy Code to the extent they prohibit the transfer of a debtor’s rights under such policies to a personal-injury trust pursuant to a chapter 11 plan.In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 1511773 (3d Cir. 2012).

Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“WSRCPA”) represents Congress’ attempt to address companies considered “too big to fail.” The statute creates a new “orderly liquidation authority” (“OLA”), which allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) to seize control of a financial company1 whose imminent collapse is determined to threaten the financial system as a whole. Commencement of a receivership under the OLA would preempt any proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code.

The comprehensive financial reform bill recently passed by the Senate1 creates a new “orderly liquidation authority” (“OLA”) that would allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) to seize control of a financial company2 whose imminent collapse is determined to threaten the financial system as a whole.