On January 21, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced that it was seeking comment on a revised proposed rule that would amend the way small banks are assessed for deposit insurance. The proposed rule would affect banks with less than $10 billion in assets that have been insured by the FDIC for at least five years.

Fourteen former MF Global executives, including Jon Corzine, the former chairman and chief executive officer, are entitled to access most of a US $200 million directors and officers liability insurance policy purchased by MF Global Holdings prior to the firm filing for bankruptcy in October 2011, under the decision of a US bankruptcy court in NYC last week. The executives had previously made a motion to access the insurance.

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware recently reversed a Court of Chancery decision declining to appoint a receiver for a dissolved Delaware corporation, Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc. (Krafft). The Chancery Court determined that a receiver was inappropriate because Krafft had no property for the receiver to distribute to potential tort victims. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an unexhausted insurance policy is property of the dissolved company even after its three-year wind-up period under Delaware law.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the motion of defendant ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation (ACA) to dismiss a class action complaint, finding that the issues were previously adjudicated adversely to ACA in the New York Supreme Court where a companion case, Oppenheimer v. ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, is currently pending.

On March 20, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed a rule (Proposed Rule), with request for comments, that implements section 210(c)(16) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act) , which permits the FDIC, as receiver for a financial company whose failure would pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States (a covered financial company), to enforce contracts of subsidiaries or affiliates of the covered financial company despite contract clauses that purport to terminate, accelerate, or provide

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

The infamous history of MF Global is closer to ending after the administrator for the bankrupt holding company filed a proposed notice of settlement that, if approved, would provide a payment of US $132 million to resolve most outstanding litigation against the company and individual former officers by certain customers and other creditors. The funds would come from insurance proceeds from policies maintained on behalf of the former officers of MF Global that were named as defendants in the litigation, including John Corizine, former chief executive officer.

On April 6, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) rescinded Financial Institution Letter (FIL) 50-2009 entitled “Enhanced Supervisory Procedures for Newly Insured FDIC-Supervised Depository Institutions.” The FIL, among other measures, had extended the de novo period for newly organized, state nonmember institutions from three to seven years for examinations, capital maintenance and other requirements.

On February 17, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved a proposal for recordkeeping requirements for FDIC-insured institutions with a large number of deposit accounts to facilitate rapid payment of insured deposits to customers if those institutions were to fail. The proposed rule would apply to insured depository institutions with more than 2 million deposit accounts. Under the proposal, these institutions would generally be required to maintain complete and accurate data on each depositor.

Pursuant to Section 727 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, an individual Chapter 7 debtor may receive a discharge "from all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief under this chapter." A Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 debtor may receive similar relief pursuant to Sections 1141 and 1328(b), respectively. Under any chapter, this discharge serves the Bankruptcy Code's principal goal of relieving a debtor from his or her prepetition obligations and providing the debtor with a "fresh start" on emergence from bankruptcy.