In the insurance industry, title insurance is known as a “long-tailed” liability risk, which means that it is common for claims to be made many years after policies are issued. For this reason, owners of real estate, their lenders and their counsel have long scrutinized the financial health of title insurance underwriters.

With approximately 7,000 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against it, Hercules Chemical has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The company is a manufacturer of chemicals for the plumbing industry. In ``Dispelling the Myths of Asbestos Litigation: Solutions for Common Law Courts,`` Rick Faulk discussed problems in the asbestos-driven toxic tort litigation system – a system that has led many companies to Chapter 11.

The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.  

AUTOMOTIVE

Parts maker Checker Motor Corp. files for Chapter 11 protection in Michigan.  

Parts maker Contech U.S., LLC, affiliates files for Chapter 11 protection in Michigan.  

PACKAGING  

Given the current state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that business related bankruptcy filings increased 41.6 percent and non-business bankruptcies increased 28.4 percent between June 30, 2007, and June 30, 2008, with more than one million Americans filing for bankruptcy during calendar year 2007, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

There is a sense of inevitability that Congress will pass legislation allowing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan (also referred to as a wage-earner’s plan) to "cram-down" the value of a mortgage on a consumer's principal residence to its market value and/or reset debtor interest rate and monthly payments to an amount that permits them to remain in their homes. This alert summarizes the latest version of H.R.

In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.

Today, the Utah Department of Financial Institutions closed MagnetBank, Salt Lake City, Utah , and the FDIC was named as receiver. The FDIC was unable to find another financial institution to assume the banking operations of MagnetBank.

The recent financial crisis has resulted in events that once seemed impossible. Recently, in the federal government’s attempts to bail out the auto industry, an event unprecedented in American history almost occurred: the forced subordination of existing secured debt to new loans issued by the federal government. If the government were to revive this concept in future bailouts and attempt to subordinate the liens of secured creditors, a suit challenging the constitutionality of such action would have a good chance of success.

The Potential For Forced Subordination

In the March 2008 issue, we discussed a decision from the In re Urban Communicators PCS, Ltd. Partnership1 case. In that decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that under section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court could limit the rate of postpetition interest to be paid to an over-secured creditor to an amount less than the contract interest rate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion, reversing an earlier bankruptcy court ruling that had revived the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Previously, the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that what it termed a simple supply contract between a natural gas seller and an end-user, as a matter of law, does not constitute a swap agreement.