In light of the possibility that several hundred FDIC-insured banks and thrifts may fail in the next two- to three-year period, many clients and friends of the firm have requested a summary of the legal concerns that arise for officers and directors immediately following the seizure of an institution by the FDIC, as well as steps that may be taken to be better prepared before a failure.
As we count down the days until the New Year, we are reminded of the momentous year we will leave behind us on December 31. While memorable for many things, 2009 may long be remembered as a year of record corporate insolvency. In 2009, General Motors, CIT, Chrysler, and Thornburg Mortgage filed four of the ten largest corporate bankruptcies in U.S. history. Equally notable are the number of corporate filings made in 2009.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of a motion by a debtor’s sole director to modify the automatic stay to allow payment of defense costs under the A-side coverage of the debtor’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. In re MILA, Inc., 2010 WL 455328 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010).
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of a motion by a debtor’s sole director to modify the automatic stay to allow payment of defense costs under the A-side coverage of the debtor’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. In re MILA, Inc., 2010 WL 455328 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an insured vs. insured exclusion bars coverage for a suit by a debtor-in-possession against former directors and officers of the company. Biltmore Assocs. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-16417, 2009 WL 1976071 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009). The court rejected the argument that the debtor-in-possession was a different legal entity from the pre-bankruptcy company insured under the policy.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, applying Illinois law in an unpublished decision, has held that Celotex's failure to provide its excess insurers notice of lawsuits claiming more than $2 billion in property damage until after Celotex entered bankruptcy precluded coverage for asbestos-related property damage under numerous policies. Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Cont'l Ins. Co. (in re Celotex Corp.), No. 06-15748, 2008 WL 2637094 (11th Cir. July 7, 2008).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has granted another preliminary injunction ordering an excess directors and officers liability insurer to advance defense costs, despite the fact that the insurer had denied coverage on the basis of a prior knowledge exclusion and three of the insured entity's principals have pled guilty to various offenses, including violations of the securities laws. Murphy v. Allied World Assurance Co. (U.S.), Inc. (In re Refco, Inc.), No. 08-01133 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2008).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary injunctions ordering a directors and officers liability insurer to advance defense costs, despite the fact that the insurer had denied coverage, and without adjudicating the coverage defense. Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Bennett et al., Adv. No. 07-01712 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Aug. 31, 2007); Grant v. Axis Reinsurance Co., Adv. No. 07-2005 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Sep. 11, 2007). The bankruptcy court applied New York law and relied heavily on the case In re WorldCom, Inc.
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.
In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.