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.

The availability of a debtor’s insurance policy can have a significant impact on its chapter 11 case. Indeed, in certain chapter 11 cases insurance proceeds may be a creditor’s only opportunity to potentially receive a recovery on meritorious claims. Relying on insurance proceeds, however, is not infallible. An insurance policy may, for example, contain a coverage exclusion that would preclude a claim. For instance, nearly all directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies traditionally include an insured v.

A common query with D&O insurance coverage is whether post-insolvency claims against the insolvent company’s directors and officers trigger the Insured vs. Insured exclusion found in most D&O policies. This issue arises when claims are brought on behalf of the insolvent company against directors in an attempt to recover money for creditors.

On May 10, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, entered an Order of Liquidation as to Health Republic Insurance of New York (HRINY) based upon a petition filed by the Acting Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Maria Vullo.  The Order was entered upon the filing of an