Section 303(i) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the court to award the debtor sanctions on account of an improper filing of an involuntary petition against it. But can a non-debtor third-party obtain such a relief? Yes, says the Bankruptcy Court In In re Vascular Access Centers, L.P., No. 19-17117 (AMC), 2022 WL 17366463 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2022).
Background
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a borrower is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Law (“Act 6”) relating to an affirmative defense raised in a mortgage foreclosure action that was subsequently discontinued without prejudice.
In pari delicto is a common law defense against liability in circumstances where the culpability of the plaintiff is at least as great as the culpability of the defendant. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania clarified Pennsylvania law on this on February 16, 2010, in Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health, Educ. & Research Found. v.
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation v PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP(3d Cir No 07-1397, May 28, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
On July 21, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, as a matter of first impression, that the Continuance of Coverage Provision of the Pennsylvania insurance insolvency statute, 40 P.S. § 221.21, precludes coverage for all “risks in effect” under an insurance policy, even when the policy was cancelled prior to liquidation.
The Adelphia Creditors Committee filed an adversary proceeding against approximately 380 defendants, including bank lenders, investment banks and their agents, alleging wrongdoing in the defendants’ dealings with Adelphia’s former management who looted the company. The complaint asserted numerous claims for relief in connection with borrowing facilities under which Adelphia became liable to repay the banks for billions of dollars that went to the insiders.
A Pennsylvania state court has reportedly ruled, in an unpublished opinion, that the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner may pursue a theory of damages against the accountant of an insolvent insurer based on a legal claim of “deepening insolvency.” SeeArio v. Deloitte & Touche, PICS No. 08-1013 (Pa. Commw. Ct.).
On February 23, 2009, Pennsylvania became the second state to recognize an "ordinary course of business" exception to preference actions brought under a state insolvency statute where the defense is not expressly provided for in the statute. In Joel S. Ario, Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in His Official Capacity as Liquidator of Reliance Insurance Company, Appellant v. H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., H.J. Heinz Finance Company, and Portion Pac, Inc., et al., Appellees, No. 21 MAP 2006 (Pa. Feb.
When an insurance company becomes insolvent, one key issue is the extent to which the insurer's liquidator may recover prior payments made by the insurer. On February 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a significant decision limiting such recoveries. The court held that payments made by a failed Pennsylvania insurance company in the ordinary course of business are not recoverable by the statutory liquidator of the insolvent insurer.
On February 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision finding that payments made by a failed Pennsylvania insurance company in the ordinary course of business are not recoverable by the statutory liquidator of the insolvent insurer because the payments were not on account of an "antecedent debt" as that term is used in the voidable preference provision of Pennsylvania's Insurance Act.