The Federal Court of Australia in Kaboko Mining Limited v Van Heerden (No 3) [2018] FCA 2055 handed down a significant decision which clarified the operation of "insolvency exclusion" clauses in a D&O liability insurance policy. The issue arose after Administrators commenced proceedings against four former directors of the company, and the insurer relied on an insolvency exclusion to decline to indemnify the former directors in respect of the claims made in the proceedings.
The facts
The Kaboko judgment brings comfort to directors who hold D&O insurance policies, or those seeking to bring proceedings against directors of an insolvent company, provided the claim is not based in whole or in part on the company's insolvency.
A recent application to the British Virgin Islands courts has sought to blur the lines between directors’ general duties to act for the benefit of an insolvent company’s creditors, and the statutory clawback associated with unfair preferences entered into in the twilight period prior to a company going into liquidation.
In a landmark decision, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court clarified that general managers cannot rely on their D&O insurance cover in the event of claims for repayment by an insolvency administrator under Section 64 German Act on Limited Liability Companies (Case I-4 U 93/16).
Das Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf hat in einer Grundsatzentscheidung klargestellt, dass sich ein Geschäftsführer im Falle von Rückforderungsansprüchen eines Insolvenzverwalters gemäß § 64 GmbH-Gesetz nicht auf seinen D&O-Versicherungsschutz berufen kann (Az. I-4 U 93/16).
Hintergrund war der alltägliche Fall, dass ein Geschäftsführer Zahlungen geleistet hat, obwohl das Unternehmen bereits insolvenzreif war. § 64 GmbH-Gesetz regelt, dass ein Geschäftsführer persönlich für Zahlungen, die die Gesellschaft trotz Zahlungsunfähigkeit oder Überschuldung geleistet hat, einstehen muss.
The appeal by an insurer ("Sovereign") was dismissed. The Court found that the notice provided to Sovereign by a co-defendant of the bankrupt insured was sufficient notice in accordance with the policy conditions for liability coverage. In the alternative, that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from forfeiture.
[2011] O.J. No. 4106
2011 ONCA 597
Ontario Court of Appeal
D.R. O'Connor A.C.J.O., J.I. Laskin and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A.
September 19, 2011
Amendments to the Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 are long overdue, so the reforming Bill currently being fast-tracked through Parliament, the Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Bill, should be welcomed by the insurance industry. In the words of the Ministry of Justice, it is intended to make it “… easier and less expensive to claim compensation from insolvent defendants”.
Current law
At the urging of U.S. policyholders, a Scottish court recently rejected a Scottish insurance company’s efforts to close its books and avoid full liability for long-tail claims when the insurance company is solvent and entirely capable of paying claims.
The case of Law Society v Dixit Shah (2007) EWHC 2841 (Ch) arose from the intervention of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors into an association of firms owned by Dixit Shah which traded under "the BJ Brandon Group" name. The Law Society alleged that the OSS discovered that around £12.5 million of client money had been misappropriated by Mr Shah.
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.