The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an insider preference complaint by Capmark Financial Group Inc. and its affiliates ("Capmark") seeking to recover a $145 million pre-bankruptcy payment from a lender group. Capmark Financial Group Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2013 WL 1420243 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

In Wallis v. Centennial Insurance Co., No. 08-cv-2558 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013), Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the Eastern District of California held that the New York Superintendent of Insurance had the authority to assert the attorney-client privilege on behalf of an insurer that was in the process of being liquidated by the Superintendent.

In In re Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Co., No. 11-15719 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2013), the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that a law firm hired to represent the debtor could not assert privilege on behalf of the debtor’s individual directors and officers.

On April 15, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued additional guidance (Guidance) with respect to the 2013 resolution plan submissions of the U.S. and foreign banking organizations that filed their initial resolution plans on July 1, 2012 (First-Round Filers).

Owners of Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtors have long devised schemes to try to hold on to their ownership interests while stiffing the debtors’ creditors. In the past, owners attempted to do this by proposing reorganization plans that paid creditors only a portion of what they are owed while selling all of the equity in the reorganized debtor to the owner for a nominal new investment.

On April 1, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, ruled that the City of Stockton, California, could proceed with its chapter 9 bankruptcy filing. Judge Klein’s decision affirmed Stockton’s status as the largest US city (population 300,000) to have successfully sought bankruptcy protection and proceed with bankruptcy.1 Judge Klein’s comments on the record may also signal that the resolution of Stockton’s chapter 9 will require the impairment of the city’s pension obligations.

Introduction

Applying Minnesota law, a federal district court has held that, where an entity’s principal shareholder was insolvent, but the entity was not, the individual’s insolvency could not be attributed to the entity for purposes of establishing Side A coverage for “Non-Indemnifiable Loss.” Zayed v. Arch Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1183952 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2013). The court further held that allegations of fraudulent inducement did not trigger an exclusion for claims “arising from” contractual liability, but that the claim was uninsurable as matter of law.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has held that a settlement agreement between the claimant and policyholder satisfies Connecticut’s direct action statute’s requirement regarding the need for an unsatisfied judgment. Tucker v. American International Group, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-1499, 2013 WL 1294476 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2013). Accordingly, the court permitted the claimant’s suit against the carrier to proceed.

Adjustments to certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code may affect your decision and strategy to either file a bankruptcy or in defending certain actions filed against you or your company. The automatic adjustments to the dollar amounts in various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. went into effect on April 1, 2013. You may access the official forms by clicking the following link to the United States Courts: