Granite Reinsurance Company won an award for unpaid premiums from Acceptance Insurance Company (in rehabilitation) in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The unpaid premiums amounted to $9 million on a $15 million dollar policy that was purchased to cover Acceptance for five years. The parties had agreed to a $3 million per year premium payment schedule, due at the beginning of each of the five years covered under the reinsurance agreement. However, a dispute arose as to the calculation of pre-judgment interest on the award.

As we reported earlier in the week, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") has begun filing lawsuits against the directors and officers of banks that it now holds in receivership . The lawsuits are consistent with previous public statements in which the FDIC committed to try to recover, from the directors and officers of these failed banks, some of the $2.5 billion lost to bad loans in recent years.

On January 24, 2011, the Honorable Dwight H. Williams, Jr. of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) request for relief from the automatic stay in the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.

In Bank of America, N.A. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Case No. 08-01753 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010), the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York was called on to decide whether Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) effectuated an improper setoff of $500 million shortly after Lehman Brother Holdings Inc. (“Lehman” or “LBHI”) filed its petition on September 15, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), and whether the setoff violated the automatic stay.

In a recent opinion, JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overruled its prior decision in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (In re Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), which adopted the accrual test, a standard for determining the existence of a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code.

In a decision that may come as a surprise to many, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) recently dismissed a derivative suit brought by a creditor on behalf of an insolvent limited liability company. See CML V, LLC v. Bax et al., 6 A.3d 238 (Del. Ch. 2010)(JetDirect Aviation Holdings, LLC, Nominal Defendant).

In a recent decision, CML V, LLC v. Bax, et al., C.A. No 5373-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that, unlike Delaware corporations, creditors of an insolvent Delaware limited liability company cannot bring derivative actions against the members or managers of the company unless they specifically contract for such rights.

It is well established that the automatic stay imposed under section 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in a typical bankruptcy case applies extraterritorially. Thus, creditors of a Chapter 11 debtor are generally prohibited from exercising any remedies against a debtor or its assets anywhere in the world. Up until recently, no court had addressed the scope of the stay applicable in a Chapter 15 case.

Recently, a Colorado bankruptcy court considered for the first time the effects of Bankruptcy Code Section 552 on a lender’s security interest in the proceeds of an FCC broadcast license. The court held that a prepetition security interest would not extend to proceeds received from a post-petition transfer of the debtor’s FCC license because the debtor did not have an attachable, prepetition property interest in the proceeds. Such an interest does not arise until the FCC approves an agreement to sell the license.

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court order dismissing a chapter 11 case filed by a corporation without obtaining—as required by its corporate charter—the consent of a preferred shareholder that was also controlled by a creditor of the corporation. In Franchise Services of North America, Inc. v. Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc. (In re Franchise Services of North America, Inc.), 891 F.3d 198 (5th Cir.