Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 60

Congoleum pre-packaged settlement is unreasonable and unenforceable against insurers

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
May 25 2007

The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that Congoleum's pre-packaged bankruptcy plan settling asbestos claims is not enforceable against its insurers

Excess D&O policy rescinded based on fraudulent representations regarding solvency

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
August 13 2007

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that an insurer could rescind an insurance policy based on an individual's fraudulent statements that the insured company was not facing bankruptcy

Federal district court reverses bankruptcy court ruling allowing appointment of “special insurance counsel”

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
April 28 2008

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has reversed a bankruptcy court ruling allowing two law firmsSnyder Miller & Orton LLP (SMO) and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (MLB)to serve as "special insurance counsel" to address insurance and insurance-coverage-litigation-related matters under the narrow special purpose standards of 327(e

Court holds notice of potential claim letter satisfies policy requirements

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
August 13 2007

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, applying Colorado law, has denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment and granted in part motions for partial summary judgment by the policyholder's former CEO and a bankruptcy trustee as assignee of the policyholder's former directors

Notice of circumstances was too general to satisfy policy

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
June 14 2007

A federal district court in Illinois has held that a policyholder failed to provide sufficient notice of circumstances that could potentially give rise to a claim to trigger coverage under a D&O policy where the policyholder informed the insurers that it was "contemplating" filing for bankruptcy and expected claims to be filed against its directors and officers

Insurer properly rescinded policy where application did not disclose that employees were stealing money

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
June 14 2007

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District Court for the District of New Jersey, applying New Jersey law, has held that a bankruptcy court properly rescinded an insurance policy where the application denied any knowledge of occurrences that might give rise to claims despite the company's knowledge that employees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

Bankruptcy Code preempts policies’ anti-assignment clauses such that transfer to Section 524(g) trust is allowed

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
March 25 2008

Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald ruled last week that a debtor's insurance policies are assets of the estate and, therefore, can be properly transferred to a 524(g) trust notwithstanding any applicable anti-assignment clauses

Proceeds of D&O policy are not property of the estate despite entity coverage

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
July 20 2007

In two related actions, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the proceeds of a D&O policy are not property of the debtor's estate and refused to grant an injunction requested by a trustee to prevent the directors and officers from consummating a settlement that would exhaust the policy limits

Bankruptcy Court denies approval of Adelphia policy buyback settlement

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
April 16 2007

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has denied approval of a settlement between Adelphia and its D&O insurers pursuant to which the insurers would have bought back their interests in the relevant policies issued to Adelphia for $32.5 million "with claims of others to policy proceeds...attaching to the proceeds of the sale."

Claimant may use Connecticut direct action statute to sue carrier after compromising claim with policyholder

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
April 9 2013

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has held that a settlement agreement between the claimant and policyholder satisfies