The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently dismissed a mortgagee’s “breach of mortgage contract” action as an impermissible second refiling following prior voluntary dismissals of a 2011 foreclosure complaint and 2013 action for breach of the promissory note based upon the same note and mortgage.

Key point

Under English law it is now clear that, in order to trace monies through bank accounts, it is not necessary that payments should occur in any specific order. 

The facts

Facts

Mr Patel transferred Mr Mirza £620,000 to bet on shares in RBS using insider information which Mr Mirza hoped to obtain from RBS contacts. The inside information did not come through and Mr Mirza refused to return the sums to Mr Patel. Mr Patel subsequently sued Mr Mirza for recovery of the £620,000 on the
basis of unjust enrichment. 

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).

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v Credit Suisse (In re Champion Enterprises, Inc.), 2010 WL 3522132 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Following a $9 million judgment in its favor, Granite Re was further awarded pre- and post-judgment interest on that judgment. Granite Re filed a proof of claim in Acceptance Insurance’s bankruptcy action for the amount of $10.9 million, the balance of the premium due under a reinsurance contract plus interest. Acceptance disputed the claim, arguing it no longer needed reinsurance, and filed a separate adversary proceeding against Granite Re alleging unjust enrichment. The Eighth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of Acceptance.

A recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York may enhance the ability of bankruptcy trustees and creditors committees to challenge allegedly fraudulent transfers that could qualify for protection under the “safe harbor” of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

A recent pair of opinions from New York and Pennsylvania shows the importance of evaluating all parts of director and officer (D&O) insurance coverage, down to each definition.  These cases, one holding for the insured and one for the insurer, demonstrate that a policy’s terms can be absolutely critical if the insured seeks indemnification for defense costs. 

As one bankruptcy court has said, “[b]ecause deals are the heart and soul of the [c]hapter 11 process, bankruptcy courts enforce them as cut by the parties.” Unfortunately, however, deals do not always turn out as the parties expected and there is sometimes litigation to determine what exactly was bargained for in a chapter 11 plan.

On May 4, 2012, the trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc., Irving Picard, revised his lawsuit against the Madoff family to add as defendants the spouses of Bernard Madoff’s two sons. Picard is seeking $54.5 million in claims for unjust enrichment from Andrew Madoff’s wife, Deborah Madoff, and Mark Madoff’s widow, Stephanie Mack. Picard is also seeking an additional $3 million that was allegedly transferred to Deborah Madoff, Stephanie Mack and Mark Madoff’s first wife, Susan Elkin.