The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana has held that an insured versus insured exclusion does not apply to preclude coverage for claims brought by a duly appointed bankruptcy trustee against an insolvent corporation’s directors and officers.  Central Louisiana Grain Cooperative v. Vanderlick, 2012 WL 293173 (Bankr. W.D. La. Jan. 31, 2012).

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of a bankruptcy plan administrator for the estate of an insured, holding that the plan administrator is entitled to recover premiums paid to an insurer after the insurer rescinded the policy. In re SONICblue Inc., 2011 WL 839401 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011). The court also held that the insurer is entitled to reimbursement for defense costs paid to the insured prior to the policy’s rescission.

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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an insured vs. insured exclusion bars coverage for a suit by a debtor-in-possession against former directors and officers of the company. Biltmore Assocs. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-16417, 2009 WL 1976071 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009). The court rejected the argument that the debtor-in-possession was a different legal entity from the pre-bankruptcy company insured under the policy.

In the last issue of Franchise Alert, we discussed how to spot signs of franchisee financial distress at an early stage. Here, we present some steps franchisors can take to deal with financially distressed franchisees.

Update Files

With the recent decline in housing and real estate generally, companies in the homebuilding and construction markets face serious challenges. Some projects have already been forced into Chapter 11 and others will almost certainly require either a bankruptcy filing or out-of-court restructure. In the event a bankruptcy is filed, vendors, contractors, subcontractors and other interested parties should be aware of the impact of important bankruptcy code provisions on their relationship with troubled companies.

Automatic Stay

In the ongoing bankruptcy action involving the Congoleum Corporation (Congoleum), the bankruptcy court refused to approve a settlement and policy buyback between Congoleum and one of its insurers, ruling that the lack of creditor support for the settlement and the lack of evidence regarding the volume and type of claims covered by the settlement precluded the court's ability to approve the settlement. In re Congoleum Corporation, No. 03-51524 (Bankr. D.N.J. May 11, 2004).

When a franchisee files for bankruptcy, a franchisor naturally has concerns over how the process will affect the parties’ relationship. Of particular concern is the possibility that the franchisor will be forced into a relationship with an unacceptable successor as a result of a bankruptcy judge’s decision to authorize assumption and assignment of the franchise agreement over the franchisor’s objection.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has concluded that it should exercise jurisdiction under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the availability of coverage for a written demand and has held that the related coverage action should not be stayed in favor of potential future underlying litigation between the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the insureds because the outcome of the coverage litigation would not be dependent on resolution of disputed facts in such a future action.  Progressiv

In late 2011, bondholders in the bankruptcy case of power company Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy) moved for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate certain transactions that occurred immediately prior to the filing of Dynegy's bankruptcy petition. The transactions at issue involve the alleged transfer of millions of dollars in assets to Dynegy's parent company (a non-debtor) approximately two months prior to the bankruptcy filing.