Applying Georgia law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia has voided a surplus lines policy on the grounds that the insured, a purported hedge fund management firm, concealed that it was operating a Ponzi scheme, submitted an inaccurate financial statement, and misrepresented that its investment funds were “stable.”Perkins v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2105908 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2012).

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has held that an excess liability insurer had no standing to object to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtor's reorganization plan where the plan, although requiring contributions from the insurer's policyholder, was not contingent on the policyholder obtaining any funds or proceeds from its insurer. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al. v. North Am. Refractories Cos. et al., Civ. Action No. 07-1750, Bankr. Case No. 02-20198 (JFK) (W. D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2008).

Judgment was handed down in the High Court this morning, in a case where recognition of a winding-up of a solvent foreign investment fund was granted under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR").

This is the first time that the English Court has examined in detail the UNCITRAL Model Law on insolvency and the interplay with its Guides to Enactment, as well as case law from various jurisdictions concerning its application to solvent scenarios. Mrs Justice Falk found that:

The School Specialty chapter 11 case began in what has become all too typical fashion. The company, overleveraged and short of cash, had no choice but to accept a lifeline extended by its second lien secured lender, a private investment fund. The terms of the debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing

Can a United States bankruptcy court deny recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding even if no one opposes such recognition? In a recent decision, Judge Burton Lifland, a highly respected bankruptcy judge and one of the authors of Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, says yes.

Liquidators of Bear Stearns Funds Seek Relief under Chapter 15

In response to the increasing prevalence of general partner (GP)-led secondary fund restructurings, the Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA) has released guidance regarding this practice. The purpose of this guidance is to promote transparency and efficiency in the secondary process.

The ILPA has defined these restructurings as transactions that offer one of the following:

The Bottom Line

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a decision confirming the applicability of the Court’s bar date order as it relates to a pension fund’s claim for withdrawal liability filed after the bar date, despite the fact that the withdrawal occurred after the deadline for filing proofs of claim.

What Happened?

Although safeguard proceedings have been used successfully as a negotiation tool in a number of high-profile cases (such as the Eurotunnel case), they have represented just 1 per cent of all insolvency proceedings in France since the Business Safeguard Act 2005 introduced the safeguard procedure in January 2006. The main reason for this lack of success is the continuing stigma that is attached to insolvency proceedings in France.

In the summer of 2007, we reported on Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. (In re Manhattan Investment Fund, Ltd.),1 decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

While the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provision in section 546(e) previously provided comfort for brokerdealers, the Bankruptcy Court’s decision in Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. (In re Manhattan Investment Fund, Ltd.), 359 B.R. 510 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007), chips away at this provision and creates new risks for those providing brokerage account services. Always at risk as a deep pocket, new duties have been thrust upon brokerdealers that go far beyond the terms of the account agreement.

Factual Background