Applying Texas law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas has held that a primary insurer that "exhausted" its policy limits by agreeing to pay the insured's bankruptcy estate its remaining policy limits, while stipulating that a significant portion of this payment would be returned to the insurer by the estate's bankruptcy trustee, was required to reimburse the excess insurer the value of the returned payments made by the trustee. Yaquinto v. Admiral Ins. Co., Inc. (In re Cool Partners, Inc.), 2010 WL 1779668 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2010).

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

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).

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?

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").

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Scotia Development, LLC,1 Judge Richard S. Schmidt denied the motions of several creditors and the State of California seeking transfer of venue from the Southern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, finding that venue was proper in Texas and that California would not be a more convenient forum for the financial restructuring of the debtors.

Background

In re Adelphia Communications Corp.,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that neither a creditor’s aggressive litigation tactics resulting in the creditor’s prospective receipt under a proposed plan of special consideration for voting in favor of the plan, which special consideration other members of the same class that voted against the plan would not obtain, nor the creditor’s ownership of claims in several debtors, in a multi-debtor Chapter 11 case, was a sufficient basis for the “draconian sanction” of disallowing such creditor’s votes