The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a Creditor Exclusion provision in D&O insurance coverage may result in significant limitations on the coverage provided to the D&Os, when the underlying dispute is with a creditor in its capacity as such.

While the frequency of Bankruptcy filings is unpredictable year over year, their presence is certain when pursuing subrogation claims. Now, throw into the mix an unsteady economy and the threat of a Defendant filing for bankruptcy is present. The Federal Bankruptcy Code provides for insurers to get around the automatic stay of a bankruptcy filing in certain situations. Below is a description of the three most commonly used sections to avoid the automatic stay in bankruptcy filings.

On September 13, the OCC published a proposed rule under the authority of the National Bank Act, to provide a framework for receiverships for national banks that are not insured by the FDIC.

Excalibur had been in run-off status since 2003, and under regulatory supervision since at least 2013. A Pennsylvania court has now placed Excalibur into liquidation based on three grounds: (1) insolvency – Excalibur’s admitted assets did not exceed its liabilities plus the greater of its capital and required surplus or capital stock; (2) Excalibur’s total adjusted capital was less than its mandatory control level risk-based capital; and (3) Excalibur’s board of directors and sole shareholder consented to liquidation.

REAL PROPERTY UPDATE

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.

For those who may be considering an investment in life settlements (see my previous blog for background), recent bankruptcy filings of life settlement entities have raised a concern not often considered when determining whether or not to invest: what would happen if the entity that owns or manages the underlying insurance policy(s) ends up in bankruptcy. Life settlement companies typically include provisions in their purchase agreements that downplay the potential ramifications of a bankruptcy filing.

Policyholders contemplating insurance coverage settlements with low-level insurers should use caution to preserve their ability to access higher-level excess policies. Excess insurers are increasingly disputing that underlying policies are properly exhausted where policyholders elect to settle with underlying insurers for less than full limits. The issue can be further complicated if the policyholder seeks protection under the bankruptcy laws against long-tail liabilities, as a recent case illustrates.

Ever since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Zeig v. Mass. Bonding & Insurance Co. in 1928, it has been well-settled that a policyholder can compromise a disputed claim with its insurer for less than the full limits of the policy without putting its rights to excess coverage at risk.

In most financing transactions, particularly project finance transactions, lenders seek to obtain security over all of a borrower’s assets. One crucial asset that sometimes does not get sufficient attention is insurance proceeds. Lenders are accustomed to ensuring access to the borrower’s insurance coverage through “additional insured” or “loss payee” provisions.