Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Brief Case for Insurer Standing in Asbestos Bankruptcies
Debtors facing mass-tort asbestos liability frequently challenge their insurers' standing to appear in the debtors' bankruptcy cases. They typically argue that their insurers have no standing because the proposed bankruptcy plan is “insurance neutral.” Debtors contend alternatively that the insurers' standing is limited to specific issues directly affecting the insurance contract, such as whether the debtor may assign policy proceeds notwithstanding anti-assignment provisions contained in the policy. Despite insurers' strong incentives to participate in mass-tort bankruptcies, bankruptcy courts have frequently been willing to suppress insurer objections that the debtor finds inconvenient.
Following the Third Circuit's 2004 decision in Combustion Engineering, it is increasingly clear that insurers have standing at least to ensure that the proposed plan does not directly alter the insurers' contractual rights. Stated differently, insurers can make certain that a proposed plan truly is “insurance neutral.” There is, however, no definition for “insurance neutral” in the Bankruptcy Code. Nor is there any consensus on what it should mean. Faced with uncertainty concerning the scope of insurers' right to participate, debtors and insurers in several recent cases have negotiated “insurance neutrality” stipulations and specifically bargained over the issues as to which the insurers will be heard. See e.g., In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., Case No. 02-10429 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 2005); In re Federal Mogul, Case No. 01-10578 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005). Even in those cases, the debtors have argued that the insurers lack standing to raise arguments specifically preserved in the stipulations. See e.g., Transcript of Jan. 9, 2005 Hearing, In re Kaiser Aluminum, No. 02-10429 (Bankr. D. Del.), at 123:19-24. Nevertheless, putting aside those cases and the inherent compromises they embody, insurers continue to assert standing in their insureds' mass-tort driven bankruptcies.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.
When Is a Repair Structural or Nonstructural Under a Commercial Lease?
A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."