The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.

An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  Yessenow v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2011 WL 2623307 (Ill. App. Ct. June 30, 2011).

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, applying New York law, has held that an insured did not violate an insurance policy's cooperation clause when it agreed, without providing advance notice to the insurer, to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay with respect to certain personal injury actions filed against it. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Grace Indus., Inc., 2009 WL 2222369 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009).

Recent news reports have focused on the problems of the financial markets on the one hand and consumer mortgage problems on the other. While Congress may yet grant authority to bankruptcy judges to modify home loans, modification of business loan facilities of all sizes remains available as a powerful and fundamental tool to be used in a business financial restructuring.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, applying New Jersey law, has held that a bankruptcy court properly rescinded an insurance policy where the application denied any knowledge of occurrences that might give rise to claims despite the company's knowledge that employees were stealing money from the company. In re Tri-State Armored Services, Inc., 2007 WL 1196558 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2007).

Buyers of assets through the bankruptcy court process seek comfort and solace in the entry of a sale order providing for the transfer of assets “free and clear” of all liabilities. Except for those liabilities expressly assumed by the buyer and new owner, the bankruptcy court order typically includes exacting and precise language transferring those assets, under the imprimatur of the United States Bankruptcy Court, free and clear of all liabilities.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  According to the court, the bankruptcy exclusion is unenforceable because coverage arises from a policy that is a property interest of the debtors, and that property interest is protected under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The insured versus insured exclusion did not apply, the court held, because the policyholder and a court-appointe

In the last several months, a number of major mass media companies have filed for chapter 11 relief, including Ion Media Networks, Sun-Times Media Group, Tribune Company, Young Broadcasting and NV Broadcasting. With the economy still struggling to recover, and asset values continuing to decline, commentators speculate that even more mass media related bankruptcies are on the horizon. Certain aspects of a mass media bankruptcy present unique challenges for the various stakeholders due to the special regulatory requirements involved.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has ruled that a defendant in a declaratory judgment coverage action waived all of his discovery objections, including objections based upon the Fifth Amendment, for failing timely to assert them. Federal Ins. Co. v. Le-Nature's, Inc., 380 B.R. 747 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008). Wiley Rein LLP represented the insurer.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to hear a chapter 11 debtor's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, which the debtor filed after its chapter 11 plan had been confirmed and substantially consummated. Valley Historic Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, No. 06-1571,___ F.3d ___, WL 1439734 (4th Cir. May 17, 2007). This decision delineates the limits of bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over claims filed by the debtor after plan confirmation.

Background