The Superior Court of Delaware recently held that a D&O insurer failed to timely respond to it insured’s reimbursement requests and must therefore provide reimbursement for prior legal defense costs and advance future defense costs within sixty days of receipt of invoices. HLTH Corp. v. Axis Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 07C-09-102, 2009 WL 756306 ( Del. Sup. Ct. Mar. 23, 2009).

The Chapter 11 filings on April 16, 2009 by General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”), GGP Limited Partnership (“GGP LP”) and 166 of their shopping center subsidiaries, many of which were formed as bankruptcy-remote, special purpose entities (“SPEs”), raised concerns for the commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) industry.

Two D&O insurers have asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota to lift an automatic stay in a bankruptcy proceeding pending against their insureds so that the insurers can pursue their coverage defenses as counterclaims against the insureds in a pending declaratory judgment action.In Re Petters Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-45257 (Bankr. D. Minn.).

On August 28, 2009, Delta Financial Corp. (“Delta”) filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking to overturn the dismissal of its coverage action against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (“Westchester”) and United States Fire Insurance Co. (“USFI”). The coverage action, which was filed as a part of an adversary proceeding with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, sought coverage under two D&O policies issued by Westchester and USFI respectively.

On August 11, a United States bankruptcy judge denied motions to dismiss the Chapter 11 cases of 21 special purpose entity (“SPE”) subsidiaries (the “Subject Debtors”) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”). A final order denying the motions was entered on August 28. The decision raises a number of issues, primarily with respect to the role of independent managers, that are of particular interest to the commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) industry.

Lessons from the GGP Cases

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied fourteen plans of reorganization filed by Congoleum Corporation before the court finally dismissed the case on February 27, 2009. While the Congoleum bankruptcy proceedings involve numerous issues, this article focuses generally on insurer standing and specifically, on whether Congoleum’s insurers had standing to object to Congoleum’s twelfth plan of reorganization.

Last week, the Associated Press announced that the number of bankruptcy filings in federal courts this year have increased by more than one-third. Based on numbers from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Associated Press reports that about 1.4 million bankruptcy cases were filed between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009. In comparison, 1 million cases were filed during this same period last year. While Chapters 7, 12 and 13 filings have all increased, of particular note, Chapter 11 filings increased by 68 percent.

In a significant ruling with potentially wide-reaching implications, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Securities Act of 1933 causes of action (Sections 11, 12, and 15) against McGraw Hill and Moody's (the "Rating Agencies") in In re: Lehman Brother Mortgage Backed Securities Litigation.

During the second afternoon session of the first day of the PLUS D&O Symposium, the panelists discussed the complex underwriting issues that arise when the company to be insured is insolvent, in bankruptcy, or close to bankruptcy. The panelists discussed the following topics and provided the following insights:

Court Broadens Interpretation of Code Sections Invalidating Ipso Facto Contract Provisions