My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-10-15_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980004 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1980004
>
2020-10-15_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980004 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2020 11:58:04 AM
Creation date
10/15/2020 7:32:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
10/15/2020
Doc Name Note
Case No. 20-12043 (GRH) Hopedale Mining LLC
Doc Name
Bankruptcy Notice
From
Foley & Lardner. LLP
To
DRMS
Email Name
JRS
JDM
GRM
CMM
CCW
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Case L20-bk-12043 Doc 453 Filed 10/06/20 Entered 10/06/20 15-26,47 Desc Main <br />Document Page 5 of 9 <br />335 B.R. 666, 672 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005). <br />13. The Arter & Hadden court outlined four possible situations regarding various types <br />of D&O coverages and how the structure of the policies impacts whether the proceeds would be <br />property of the estate, including: (1) a policy that only provides direct coverage to the debtor, <br />where all proceeds are property of the estate; (2) a policy that only provides direct coverage to the <br />officers and directors, where none of the proceeds are property of the estate; (3) a policy which <br />covers both the directors and officers and the debtors, where the proceeds would be property of <br />the estate if their depletion would harm the estate; and (4) where there is indemnification coverage <br />for the debtor, but the indemnification has not occurred, is hypothetical, or speculative, in which <br />case, the proceeds are not property of the bankruptcy estate. Id. at 672 (quoting In re Allied Digital, <br />Technologies Corp., 306 B.R. 505, 512 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004)). <br />14. In the Motion, Mr. Hughs apparently believes that the Policy is one that provides <br />benefits directly to both directors and officers, and that he has a claim against the proceeds of the <br />Policy that is at least competitive with that of the Debtors. See, e.g., Doc. 429 at ¶ 37. This is not <br />the case. The Court must examine the particular claim at issue (and review the policy language as <br />a whole) to make this determination. <br />15. Here, the Policy provides benefits directly to directors and officers — but only for <br />certain claims where indemnity is neither permitted nor required. See, e.g. Policy § (I)(A). As set <br />forth above, Mr. Hughs cannot make a claim under this coverage part, because he claims he is <br />entitled to indemnity. <br />16. The coverage parts dealing with indemnity are designed to benefit the Debtors. See, <br />e.g., Policy § (I)(B) ("The Insurer shall pay on behalf of the Company ... to the extent the Company <br />is required or permitted to pay on behalf of the Insured Persons as indemnification (emphasis <br />61 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.