01.01.2014 Views

Download PDF - Goodmans

Download PDF - Goodmans

Download PDF - Goodmans

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

eligibility for Chapter 15 recognition and relief in the U.S. Part D discusses the very few decisions rendered by<br />

U.S. courts in re/insurer Chapter 15 cases filed to date which address issues specific to re/insurers, as opposed<br />

to those generic to Chapter 15 cases involving any debtor. 3 Part E considers the central objections articulated<br />

thus far by policyholder counsel to Chapter 15 relief in aid of solvent schemes of arrangement. 4<br />

2. Chapter 15 Re/Insurance Cases Filed Through February 2009<br />

CASE(S)<br />

Globale<br />

Ruckversicherun,<br />

Global General<br />

and Reinsurance<br />

Co Ltd<br />

Thomas Klaus<br />

Freudenstein as<br />

Foreign Rep<br />

FOREIGN<br />

PROCEEDIN<br />

G<br />

COUNTRY<br />

United<br />

Kingdom<br />

DISPOSITION<br />

Run‐Off<br />

Scheme<br />

Part of AXA<br />

pool (see<br />

below)<br />

Recognized<br />

Global General<br />

as Main<br />

Proceeding,<br />

Globale as<br />

Non‐Main<br />

Bluepoint Re Ltd Bermuda Provisional<br />

Liquidation<br />

Recognized as<br />

Main<br />

Proceeding<br />

Sphere Drake<br />

Insurance Ltd<br />

ING Re (UK)<br />

Limited<br />

United<br />

Kingdom<br />

United<br />

Kingdom<br />

Run‐Off<br />

Scheme<br />

Recognized as<br />

Main<br />

Proceeding<br />

Run‐Off<br />

Scheme<br />

Recognized as<br />

Main<br />

Proceeding<br />

REPORTED<br />

DECISIONS<br />

FILED IN U.S.<br />

BANKRUPTCY<br />

COURT FOR<br />

New York<br />

Southern Dist<br />

New York,<br />

Southern Dist<br />

New York,<br />

Southern Dist<br />

New York<br />

Southern Dist<br />

CASE #<br />

08‐14939<br />

08‐14940<br />

Jointly<br />

Administere<br />

d<br />

Cases<br />

DATE<br />

FILED<br />

10<br />

Decembe<br />

r 2008<br />

08‐13169 13 August<br />

2008<br />

08‐12832 22 July<br />

2008<br />

08‐10018 04<br />

January<br />

2008<br />

3 Comprehensive exploration of key issues adjudicated to date respecting Chapter 15 is beyond the scope of<br />

this work. The author (smelnik@eapdlaw.com) can direct the reader to several recent compendia. In addition,<br />

as of this writing, the following court decisions on issues raised by Chapter 15 have been reported: In re<br />

Bancredit Cayman Limited, 2007 WL 3254369 (Bankr. Nov. 2, 2007), aff’d, 2008 WL 919533 (Mar. 31 2008),<br />

further disposition, 2008 WL 5396618 (Bankr. Nov. 25, 2008); In re Basis Yield Alpha Fund, Decision and Order on<br />

Motion for Summary Judgment Seeking Recognition as foreign main proceeding, 381 B.R. 37 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan.<br />

16, 2007); In re Bear Stearns High‐Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., 374 B.R. 122 (Bankr.<br />

S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff’d, 389 B.R. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Betcorp, __ B.R. ___, 2009 WL 606437 (Bankr. D. Nev.<br />

2009) (on appeal); In re Condor Insurance Limited, 2008 WL 2858943 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. July 17, 2008), aff’d,<br />

2009 WL 321627 (S.D. Miss. Feb 9, 2009); In re Ephedra Products Liability Litigation, 349 Bankr. 333 (2006); In re<br />

Ernst & Young, Inc, as Receiver of Klyties Developments, Inc, 383 B.R. 773 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008); In re Ho Seok<br />

Lee, 348 BR 799 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2006); In re Iida, 377 B.R. 243 (BAP 9th Cir. 2007); In re Loy, 380 B.R. 154<br />

(Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007); In re Oversight & Control Comm’n of Avanzit, SA, 385 B.R. 525 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re<br />

Petition of Lloyd, No 05‐60100(BRL), 2005 WL 3764946 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2005); In re Pro‐Fit Holdings, Ltd,<br />

391 B.R. 850 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008); In re Ran, 390 B.R. 257 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Houston Div 2008); In re SPhinX,<br />

Ltd, 351 B.R. 103 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006), aff’d, 371 B.R. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); In re Tradex Swiss AG, 384 B.R. 34<br />

(Bankr. D. Mass. 2008); In re Tri‐Cont. Exch Ltd, 349 B.R. 627 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2006); Lavie v Ran, 384 B.R. 469<br />

(S.D. Tex. 2008); US v JA Jones Constr Group, 333 B.R. 637 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).<br />

4 Only one of these objections has been asserted via formal objection filed in any Chapter 15 case to date (see<br />

In re Greyfriers Insurance Company Limited, et al., eleven (11) jointly administered Chapter 15 cases filed September<br />

18, 2007 re “WFUM” pool solvent scheme participants, Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York<br />

Case Nos. 07‐12934‐43).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!