Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Answering to the Regulators
Insurance companies, like any other segment of today's fragile economy, have shareholders, creditors, insureds, and regulators to whom they are answerable. They are hardly immune from the ups and downs of so-called new economy companies, nor the more time-tested old economy companies. As such, what is the likely result from a jurisdictional and regulatory standpoint of an insurance company seeking relief by the filing of a bankruptcy proceeding? At first glance, the answer seems quite simple. Pursuant to 11 USC Section 109(b)(2), domestic insurance companies are not eligible to be debtors under Chapter 7. That having been said, what has happened in the Conseco bankruptcy proceedings and in other 'insurance' bankruptcy proceedings are worth reviewing.
Most insurance companies are regulated and licensed by state governments and must fulfill certain reporting requirements and meet certain financial standards. Typically, a state will have a division of insurance or a department or agency of insurance. What complicates the cross-over of a regulatory and bankruptcy analysis is that insurance companies have migrated over the past decade or two into so many other businesses and are typically viewed today as full-service financial companies. Conseco is the classic 'holding' company with a wholly-owned entity that is an insurance company.
If an insurance company, as distinct from its full-service financial company parent entity, seeks the protection of the bankruptcy court, the likely result is a dismissal. If the holding company files, the result is different. Perhaps, though, an argument could be made that a specialized insurer ' focused on one industry or exposure ' could be subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The health care industry may well be the most instructive setting to determine how insurance companies, regulators and bankruptcy courts will react to an insurance company seeking the protection of the bankruptcy court.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?