The bankruptcy court's opinion exemplifies the second guessing that can confront solvency opinion providers and highlights issues that providers should carefully vet with experienced legal counsel.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer because a lawsuit against the insured actuarial services firm was a claim "arising out of the insolvency" of the insured's client and therefore was barred by the policy's insolvency exclusion. Zurich Global Corp. U.K. v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2009 WL 2827969 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2009).
In a decision that will be of great interest to the creditor community, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, on November 5, 2009, that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys’ fees that was authorized under a valid prepetition contract. The case, Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland,1 extends and clarifies the US Supreme Court’s March 2007 decision in the Travelers case,2 which opened the door for such a ruling.
For participants in the over-the-counter ("OTC") derivatives markets, perhaps the most significant recent US legal decision interpreting counterparty rights upon a bankruptcy event of default was the September 15, 2009 bench ruling in the US Lehman Brothers chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Case No. 08-13555 et seq. (JMP)(jointly administered) ("Bankruptcy Case").
In a recent holding that a creditor may collect, on an unsecured basis, post-petition attorneys’ fees under an otherwise enforceable pre-petition contract, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals followed a similar ruling by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, adding to a conflict among the circuits on this issue.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is proposing to amend its Bankruptcy Rules to permit the trustee for a bankrupt futures commission merchant to continue to operate the business of the commodity broker in the ordinary course for a limited period of time.
On December 1, 2009, numerous changes to the time periods applicable in bankruptcy cases took effect. These changes, which will impact creditors and debtors alike, are relatively straightforward but must be carefully reviewed and thoroughly understood. Time plays a critical role in the administration of bankruptcy cases, affecting the degree of notice a party is required to give before certain actions can be taken or approved by the bankruptcy court as well as deadlines for filing various documents, asserting various rights and satisfying certain statutory obligations.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision on a question of first impression before the court: whether section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to administrative claims arising under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. See, generally, ASM Capital, L.P. v. Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.), 582 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2009).
The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has placed Magnolia Insurance Company under administrative supervision, finding that the company was in an unsound condition. Under terms of a December 14, 2009 consent order, the company will not be able to issue or renew any policies without permission from the regulator. Magnolia’s President, H. James Irl, has resigned and is prohibited from exercising any managerial control. The consent order also required the company to notify policyholders and agents that if they choose to obtain coverage from Magnolia, they do so at their own risk.
There is something for everyone in the suitably named Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009–including potential recoveries for unsecured creditors of a debtor reorganizing or liquidating pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Background