The United States District Court for the District of Kansas, applying Kansas law, has held that a D&O policy issued to a bank was not automatically canceled or terminated when the FDIC was appointed as the bank’s receiver but that coverage under the policy ceased. Columbian Fin. Corp. v. BancInsure, Inc., 2009 WL 4508576 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2009). The court concluded that although coverage ceased upon the appointment of the FDIC as receiver, the insureds could report claims at any time prior to the expiration of the policy.
The Western Cape High Court[1] has recently passed judgment in a decision which reiterates the bounds of the duties of directors of holding companies to subsidiary companies. Even though the case involved a damages claim against the liquidators of the holding company (in liquidation), the principle applies equally to directors.
Key Points: The High Court held there was no variation in the terms of the Charge and therefore no registration was required.
On 1 September 2010 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in Re Octaviar Ltd (No 7) [2009] QCA 282, unanimously dismissing the appeal in Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29.
The fixed and floating charge
On 13 December 2009, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of UAE, Ruler of Dubai, issued Decree No. 57 for 2009 Establishing a Tribunal to Decide Disputes Related to the Settlement of the Financial Position of Dubai World and its Subsidiaries (Decree No. 57). The text of Decree No. 57 is available at http://www.difccourts.ae.
Why Issue Decree No. 57?
3V Capital Master Fund LTD. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14019 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011).
The next few years will see the “redevelopment” of the law in two critical areas involving bank failures where the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora-tion (“FDIC”) is appointed receiver: (i) the relative rights and claims of creditors of a bank or savings and loan holding company, including the FDIC; and (ii) D&O and professional liability. Significant decisions are be-ginning to be issued with regard to the former.
La Dirección General de Tributos examina, en un contexto de consolidación fiscal, las consecuencias fiscales de una operación en virtud de la cual la entidad dominante condona los créditos que tiene sobre sus filiales, derechos adquiridos previamente por medio de una operación de reestructuración empresarial no acogida al régimen de neutralidad fiscal y registrados por un valor inferior a su nominal.
This case involved an application for security for costs against Mr Nogotkov who is, or claims to be, the Liquidator appointed by a Russian court of Dalnyaya Step LLC ("DSL").
On 8 November 2017, the High Court released its decision in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (the "Attilan" case). The decision is interesting as it marks the first time the High Court had the opportunity to hear arguments on section 211E of the Companies Act (the "Act") on super priority for rescue financing.
Introduction