The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an insured vs. insured exclusion bars coverage for a suit by a debtor-in-possession against former directors and officers of the company. Biltmore Assocs. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-16417, 2009 WL 1976071 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009). The court rejected the argument that the debtor-in-possession was a different legal entity from the pre-bankruptcy company insured under the policy.

Summary

This briefing summarizes the recent U.S. Bankruptcy Court order establishing bar dates for creditors filing claims in relation to debts owed to them by Lehman Brothers entities in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, this briefing discusses who must file a proof of claim, how to file the proof of claim, and the special requirements for claims in respect of derivative contracts, guarantees and Lehman program securities.

The recent economic tumult brings to the forefront the issue of fiduciary duties in the context of insolvency – an unfortunate circumstance faced by an increasing number of boards of directors and shareholders in these troubled times.

Two US federal appeals courts recently held that a provision of the Bankruptcy Code can protect private company sellers in the event that the company they sold later goes bankrupt and a fraudulent transfer claim is brought against them to recover the sale proceeds. The courts found that this protection applies when a financial institution is used to handle the transfer of consideration in the sale.

In light of the possibility that several hundred FDIC-insured banks and thrifts may fail in the next two- to three-year period, many clients and friends of the firm have requested a summary of the legal concerns that arise for officers and directors immediately following the seizure of an institution by the FDIC, as well as steps that may be taken to be better prepared before a failure.

On April 16, 2009 and April 22, 2009, General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) and certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), including many subsidiaries structured as special purpose entities (the “SPE Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”).

Opinion Serves to Remind Lenders That “Bankruptcy Remote” Does Not Mean “Bankruptcy Proof”

Judge Allan L. Gropper of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a much-anticipated order on August 11, 2009, in the challenge to the bankruptcy filings by certain special-purpose-entity (“SPE”) affiliates of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”).

On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently declined to dismiss the Chapter 11 petitions of several subsidiaries of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP) demonstrating that special purpose entities (SPEs), designed to avoid bankruptcy, can be subject to bankruptcy proceedings despite having strong cash flows, no debt defaults and "bankruptcy remote" structures.

After holding a hearing on the topic this past July, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) released a report earlier this week entitled, “The Use of TARP Funds in Support and Reorganization of the Domestic Automotive Industry,” examining how TARP funds have been used to support and reorganize both