On 30 November 2011, New York Senate Bill 2713A was delivered to the desk of Governor Andrew Cuomo for signature. If signed by the Governor, the bill will add provisions to the New York Insurance Law regarding the treatment of qualified financial contracts in an insurance insolvency proceeding. “Qualified financial contracts” include derivatives, securities lending, repurchase agreements, futures contracts and other financial instruments. These contracts are typically documented under master agreements providing for netting of obligations between the parties.

Thus far in 2011, six additional states have enacted the provisions from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Insurer Receivership Model Act (“IRMA”) that govern the treatment of “qualified financial contracts” and “netting agreements.”

The IRMA provisions, which are modelled on the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, allow a party that has entered into a swap transaction with an insurer to exercise certain netting, collateral realization and termination rights without being precluded by the automatic stay that is imposed if the insurer becomes insolvent.

The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) have jointly approved a proposed rule requiring certain companies to periodically submit Resolution Plans (also referred to as “living wills”) and Credit Exposure Reports (the “Proposed Rule”) to the FRB and FDIC.1

On 18 January 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued an interim final rule (the “Rule”) with request for comments regarding certain provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd- Frank Act”). Title II creates the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”), which is a mechanism under which “covered financial companies” can be liquidated in a uniform fashion rather than under inconsistent insolvency regimes.

The treatment of derivatives, or “qualified financial contracts”, under state insurance insolvency laws has received increased attention since the financial crisis. Four states passed laws in 2010 that allow for the exercise of certain netting collateral and termination provisions in an insurance insolvency without regard to the automatic stay mechanism and similar laws are anticipated in other states in 2011. Federal laws provide a level of certainty with respect to the treatment of certain swap agreement provisions in a general corporate bankruptcy. The U.S.

In a decision which has not yet been confirmed by the German Federal Court, the Higher Regional Court of Celle (an appellate court) has decided that a German policyholder of UK life insurer Equitable Life is not protected by a scheme of arrangement which had been approved by the London High Court in February 2002 (OLG Celle 8 U 46/09 from 8 September 2009). The claimant had challenged that, following the scheme of arrangement, he would have had received lesser profit payments. A final decision of the German Federal Court is expected at the end of 2010.

In May 2021, the UK Government published a Consultation which set out its proposals for targeted (but significant) amendments to certain aspects of the existing UK insolvency arrangements for insurers.

Doing Business in Russia 2015 Doing Business in Russia 2015 Baker & McKenzie - CIS, Limited Moscow Office White Gardens, 10th Floor 9 Lesnaya Street Moscow 125047, Russia Telephone: +7 495 787 27 00 Fax: +7 495 787 27 01 [email protected] St. Petersburg Office BolloevCenter, 2nd Floor 4A Grivtsova Lane St.

Welcome to the fifth edition of Baker & McKenzie's quarterly Asia Pacific Financial Services & Regulatory Newsletter.

Liquidators of insolvent Australian companies often pursue directors of the failed company in recovery proceedings for the benefit of creditors. Following a High Court of Australia decision in April 2016, it is now clear that the liquidators can join liability insurers of defendant directors in such proceedings, even when the insurer has denied liability under a policy.  The liquidators, even though not a party to the contract, may then seek a declaration in the same proceedings that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured defendant.