Events of Default are most often found in the context of loan agreements and are similar to termination rights that may be found in commercial agreements, albeit with potentially different consequences. An Event of Default is an event or circumstance relating to a borrower or its activities which will give rise to a right for a lender to refuse to make any further advances, demand immediate repayment of a loan, make a term loan repayable on demand and/or enforce its security.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying New York law, has held that an inadequate consideration exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for a lawsuit arising out of a debt restructuring transaction. Delta Financial Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Ins. Co. (In re Delta Financial Corp.), 2010 WL 1784054 (3d Cir. May 5, 2010).
The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) estimates that by the end of 2010, more than 300 banks will have failed, and that the cost of resolving these failures may reach $100 billion over the next four years.1
In re Spansion, Inc, 426 BR 114 (Bankr Del April 1, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages by investors in Access Cardiosystems, Inc. against one of the defendants, Randall Fincke. The investors had asserted claims against Mr.
COSTELLO v. GRUNDON (October 18, 2010)
At a time when billions of dollars of assets are under the supervision of federal receivers and bankruptcy trustees, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently ruled in favor of an equity receiver and held that in proposing her plan of distribution to investors, she was not bound by the requirements of state law when establishing priorities for and making distributions to investors.
On February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declining to modify the September 20, 2008 Sale Order that approved the sale to Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) of assets collectively comprising the bulk of the North American investment banking and capital markets business of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and certain of their affiliates (together “Lehman”).
On January 10, 2014, a Bankruptcy Court Judge issued a strongly-worded, 65-page opinion that exposes a “startling pattern of misrepresentation” by some plaintiffs’ attorneys in asbestos litigation. He concluded that the “withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating” recoveries. In re GarlockSealing Techs., No. 10-31607, at 35, 37 (Jan. 10, 2014, Bankr. W.D.N.C.).
Applying Georgia law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia has voided a surplus lines policy on the grounds that the insured, a purported hedge fund management firm, concealed that it was operating a Ponzi scheme, submitted an inaccurate financial statement, and misrepresented that its investment funds were “stable.”Perkins v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2105908 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2012).