On March 16, 2011, plaintiffs in ABN Amro Bank, et al. v. MBIA Inc., et al. filed their opening brief in the New York Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs are appealing the 3-to-2 decision of an intermediate appellate court dismissing their suit challenging the "fraudulent restructuring" of monoline insurer MBIA. The case, brought by a group of banks that are beneficiaries of MBIA's structured finance-related policies, claims that MBIA transferred $5 billion in assets from MBIA Insurance Corporation (a failing subsidiary) to MBIA Illinois (a stronger subsidiary).

The short answer to the title question is “no.” However, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank” or the “Act”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has limited “back-up” authority to place into liquidation an insurance company that (i) meets certain criteria as respects the nature of its business and (ii) is essentially “too big to fail.” This liquidation proceeding would, however, still be under the relevant state insurance liquidation laws.1  

On March 15, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) to implement certain orderly liquidation authority (“OLA”) provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, under California law, that an insurer had no duty to defend an insured actuarial services firm in litigation alleging that the insured’s reserve reviews and rate level recommendations contributed to the insolvency of a medical malpractice self-insurance fund. Zurich Specialties London Limited v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2011 WL 1118463 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011).

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which is overseeing the liquidation of the insurer in the coverage dispute, entered an order approving the insurer’s denial of coverage under an excess policy for a $20 million settlement that two individual insureds paid into a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) redress fund. The court adopted the recommendation of the referee appointed to hear the coverage dispute, who applied California law and concluded that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment following briefing and oral argument. Wiley Rein represented the insurer before the referee.

Reorganization or debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing has become an increasing source of litigation.

On March 17, 2010 we reported on the decision of a New York intermediate appellate court to apply New York law to disallowed claims under insurance policies issued by Midland Insurance Company, an insolvent multiline insurer placed into liquidation in New York.

The New York Court of Appeals decision on April 5, in the Midland Insurance Company liquidation (In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Company1) is an important affirmation of policyholder rights. In this decision, New York’s highest court held that a policyholder is entitled to a claim and policy-specific choice of law analysis in the liquidation process, rejecting the Midland liquidator’s effort to make a blanket application of New York law to Midland’s 38,000 policyholders.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of a bankruptcy plan administrator for the estate of an insured, holding that the plan administrator is entitled to recover premiums paid to an insurer after the insurer rescinded the policy. In re SONICblue Inc., 2011 WL 839401 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011). The court also held that the insurer is entitled to reimbursement for defense costs paid to the insured prior to the policy’s rescission.

The Delaware federal district court issued an order directing the district’s bankruptcy court to determine whether an adversary proceeding constituted a “core” proceeding. PRS Insurance Group commenced a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in 2001. Thereafter, the trustee appointed filed suit in Ohio against Westchester Fire Insurance Company and ACE INA Holding for breach of two reinsurance agreements and bad faith refusal to pay claims.