ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
…
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Everything in this issue at your fingertips
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
The latest rulings for you to review.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
The latest cases for your review.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent cases you need to know.
Features
Christine McGuinness
Present-day real estate financing is significantly more complex than traditional financing. Sobered by borrower bankruptcies and compelled by rating agency requirements in the modern day era of mortgage securitizations, lenders are now looking to "mezzanine loans" to bridge the gap between senior debt and borrower equity. A mezzanine loan will often cover 50% to 90% of the equity required to acquire a property. In order to secure the repayment of a mezzanine loan, a lender customarily requires a pledge of the partnership or membership interests of the property owning entity.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
Stephen T. Murray
&
Steven J. Torres
The applicability of the bedrock reinsurance principle of "follow the settlements" is at the core of an increasing number of recent reinsurance disputes concerning whether a reinsurer must follow the manner its reinsureds allocate and aggregate underlying losses. Over the last 5 years, a number of courts have addressed whether the doctrine of "follow the settlements" precludes a reinsurer from second-guessing its reinsured's determination of how it allocated and/or aggregated losses in resolving disputes with the underlying insured. As discussed more fully below, reinsureds typically argue that under the "follow the settlements" doctrine, a reinsurer must defer to the allocation and aggregation decisions of its reinsured, provided those decisions are made in good faith. Reinsurers on the other hand, typically argue that "follow the settlements" is not unlimited, but that the reinsured's decisions must be consistent with the language of the reinsurance agreement.
Robert E. Johnston
Plaintiffs in mass tort cases always have had a knack for expanding the universe of potential defendants, seeking the maximal number of deep pockets in each case. Historically, doctrines such as market-share liability and concert of action have been relied upon by plaintiffs to access all the participants in an industry, based on the acts of only some of the participants therein. Recently, as those theories of broadened liability have begun to meet with judicial resistance, plaintiffs have turned to an ancient common law doctrine through which to expand the number of available defendants in mass tort suits: the conspiracy theory. The focus of this article is on the question of whether industry participants accused of participating in such an alleged conspiracy can and should properly expect their liability insurers to defend such suits and indemnify any loss resulting therefrom. As shown below, there is no categorical bar to coverage for conspiracy liability in standard-form comprehensive general liability policies ("CGL"). Instead, coverage turns on the object of the alleged conspiracy and the injury suffered. Although many courts have shown great hostility to coverage for conspiracy-only claims, in many circumstances arising in the context of traditional mass tort suits insureds should be entitled to a defense (certainly) and indemnity (depending on the facts).
