Update on Directors’ and Officers’ Insurance in Bankruptcy

By Douglas K. Mayer, Martin J.E. Arms, and Emil A. Kleinhaus of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
110915.wlrk.dMayer.3477.web 110913.wlrk.mArms.1503.web120221.wlrk.kleinhaus-1009.webD&O insurance policies typically combine coverage for certain liabilities and defense costs of individual directors and officers (“A” coverage) and of their companies (“B” and “C” coverage). In recent years D&O policies also typically state that payments to insured individuals under their A coverage take priority over payments of B or C coverage to the insured company.

After commodities broker MF Global filed for bankruptcy in 2011, insured individual directors and officers asked the bankruptcy court to allow them to request payment of their A coverage for their defense costs in ongoing litigation, but were opposed by the contention that all access to the D&O insurance policy, including the individuals’ A coverage, was subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay due to the policy’s B and C coverages. [The B and C coverage of the company was directly subject to the stay; the personal A coverage was argued to be sufficiently related to the B and C coverage that it was also stayed.]

The bankruptcy court ultimately allowed the individuals to access their A coverage by honoring the policy’s priority of payment language, but in the interim granted the individuals only limited access to insurance money while the coverage litigation was ongoing. The MF Global D&O insurance dispute illustrates the significant risk that individuals may be barred, or at least significantly delayed, in gaining access to their personal A coverage under a typical directors and officers insurance policy issued to a company that subsequently enters bankruptcy, and highlights the usefulness of separate A-only or Difference in Condition coverage for individual directors and officers.

For the full memo, navigate here.

The Evolution of European Insolvency Law Part 3: The EU Parliament’s Report on the Amendment of the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR)

By Robert Arts and Dr. Björn Laukemann (Maîtr. en droit)

Robert Arts Laukemann PicAfter the external evaluation of European Insolvency Law (Part 1) and the European Commission’s proposal for the amendment of the EIR (Part 2), the report of the European Parliament (EP) on this proposal marked the latest stage of the reform process.

While the Parliament generally supports the changes proposed by the Commission and many of its amendments simply clarify wording or align the text with the existing legislation, the draft report made some noteworthy revisions:

  1. To prevent abusive venue-shopping, the draft requires the factual circumstances of the debtor’s centre of main interests to be established three months prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings.
  2. While welcoming the introduction of synthetic proceedings (i.e. the granting of special rights to groups of local creditors in order to avoid the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings) the EP strengthens the procedural standing of the local creditors by:

(i) granting them the power to challenge any decision to postpone or refuse the opening of secondary proceedings;

(ii) allowing them to petition the court conducting the main proceeding to take protective measures, e.g. by prohibiting the removal of assets or the distribution of proceeds, or by ordering the administrator to provide security; and

(iii) empowering the court to appoint a trustee to safeguard their interests.

  1. The coordination and cooperation between administrators appointed in different proceedings within a group of companies is further enhanced by the implementation of an independent coordinator who, for instance, is empowered to present a non-binding, court-approved group coordination plan, to mediate in disputes between insolvency representatives of group members, or to request a stay of proceedings with respect to any member of the group.

As a result, the Parliament report  aims to strengthen the role of main insolvency proceedings while still sufficiently considering interests of local creditors and to improve coordination within groups of companies. The draft is expected to pass the European Council by the end of this year.

See the full report here.

The Article III Problem in Bankruptcy

By Anthony J. Casey and Aziz Z. Huq, University of Chicago Law School

Casey, Anthony_0Huq Aziz 2009-06-18

The Supreme Court has struggled for the last three decades in defining the permissible scope of bankruptcy courts’ power. This question poses difficult federalism and separations-of-powers problems under Article III of the Constitution. Divided opinions in Northern Pipeline Construction v. Marathon Pipe Line, and more recently, in Stern v. Marshall, have produced confusion and litigation for practitioners and lower courts. This is true in large part because the Court’s Article III decisions lack any foundational account of why bankruptcy judges implicate a constitutional problem. As the Court prepares to confront the issue once again later this term, Aziz Huq and I provide such an account in a new article. This account more concretely identifies the precise stakes in this debate. We argue that a tractable, economically sophisticated constraint on delegations to the bankruptcy courts can be derived from what should be an obvious source: the well-tested creditors’ bargain theory of bankruptcy. Working from this account of bankruptcy’s necessary domain minimizes Article III and federalism harms while also enabling bankruptcy’s core operations to continue unhindered. To illustrate its utility, we then apply our framework to a range of common bankruptcy disputes, demonstrating that many of the Court’s existing jurisprudence is sound in result, if not in reasoning.

The article is forthcoming in the University of Chicago Law Review, and is available here.

A New Risk to Bankruptcy Sales – Unwinding of the Sale Due to a Bad Faith Filing

posted in: Valuation | 0

Authors: Lenard M. Parkins and Karl D. Burrer of Haynes and Boone, LLP

Parkins_Lenny HeadshotBurrer_Karl headshotRecently, the Eleventh Circuit rendered its decision in the Wortley v. Chrispus Venture Capital, LLC case unwinding a four-year old sale order based on a finding that the underlying bankruptcy case was filed in bad faith. The decision injects a new risk for buyers of distressed assets – the potential reversal of a sale order years after the closing of the transaction.

While the Wortley opinion clearly provides that a finding of “bad faith” with respect to the filing of a bankruptcy case can result in its dismissal (even) years later, it is unclear whether the holding requires the unwinding of all sales that transpired prior to dismissal of a bankruptcy case subsequently deemed to have been filed in bad faith. As a general matter, a dismissal for a bad-faith filing is a matter of court discretion under section 1112(b) – not a matter of jurisdiction.  Further, section 349 seems to provide that dismissals are not per se intended to unwind sales to good faith purchasers in a bankruptcy case. Accordingly, it can be argued that the Wortley holding should be limited to circumstances in which the purchaser is also the party found to have unclean hands with respect to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.  Notwithstanding this analysis, the decision will require a new (and potentially amorphous) aspect of diligence for bankruptcy purchasers: the original motivation for the bankruptcy filing.

See here for a more detailed discussion of the Wortley decision.