This briefing is the first in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing over the next fortnight.

The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know – part 1

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Uncrystallised pension pot remains protected following bankruptcy

A recent judgment for partial dismissal by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reinforces that a bank, when serving as a depository of fiduciary funds, may be shielded from liability for the fiduciary’s misconduct by the powerful protections of Tennessee’s Uniform Fiduciaries Act (the “UFA”).  

IN RE: MEYERS (August 2, 2010)

The Bankruptcy Code treats insiders with increased scrutiny, from longer preference periods to rigorous equitable subordination principles, denial of chapter 7 trustee voting rights, disqualification in some cases of votes on a cram-down chapter 11 plan, and restrictions on postpetition key-employee compensation packages. The treatment of claims by insiders for prebankruptcy services is no exception to this general policy: section 502(b)(4) disallows insider claims for services to the extent the claim exceeds the "reasonable value" of such services.

Receiverships are becoming a popular tool for creditors to manage distressed real estate and to realize upon their collateral. Lenders are looking at receiverships as a faster and more efficient and cost effective strategy than forcing a debtor into bankruptcy. They offer the lender flexibility as opposed to well established procedures under bankruptcy. The current economy is also resulting in increased use of receiverships to complete unfinished buildings.  

In re Goody’s Family Clothing, Inc- F3d – 2010 WL 2671929 (3d Cir June 29, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re 15375 Memorial Corporation, et al, 430 BR 142 (Bankr D Del May 17, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.

Introduction