![Page 1: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law
Daniel R. Sovocool
![Page 2: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Overview: Three Topics
Background of the dispute
The bankruptcy and the Court’s ruling, now being appealed to the BAP
Policy and practical ramifications for other states
![Page 3: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
The Key Issue
Key issue: Where GFs exist, can the bankruptcy court impose procedures to estimate the self-insured claims at the time of bankruptcy and return any “excess” collateral to the estate, for the benefit of other creditors?
![Page 4: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
The Principal Parties• Leather tanning companies in Maine and Missouri• Started with Irving Tanning Company in 1936
› Maine self-insured operations (Prime Maine and Irving)› Missouri self-insured operations (Prime Missouri)
• History of plant closures, rising costs and litigation arising from use of toxic chemicals.
• Toxics and leather tanneries
![Page 5: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
The Maine Regulatory Framework
• Two general requirements (annual privilege to self-insure):› Have the “financial ability to pay” › Secure the obligation under certain security approved by the
Maine Superintendent of Insurance• Self-insurer can request a reduction of excess collateral;
ultimately up to the regulator’s discretion
![Page 6: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
The Missouri Regulatory Framework
• Similar collateral requirements • Self-insurers can request the release of collateral after
three years from the date of closure of all cases• Discretionary right to return excess,
at most
![Page 7: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Bankruptcy
• In November and December, 2010, the various Prime Tanning companies filed for Chapter 11 and became jointly administered.
• November 2011, debtors filed a plan of reorganization• Liquidating plan funded by (among other things) the
“self-insurance funds” held by state authorities and a bonding company to secure the self-insured workers compensation liabilities in Maine and Missouri
![Page 8: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Prime Missouri’s Collateral and the Automatic Stay
ACSTAR took position that the stay prohibited its disbursement of the bond proceeds
![Page 9: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
The Original Proposed Plan
• Immediate turnover of all collateral• Bar date• Estimation process• Distribution of excess• Channeling injunction
![Page 10: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Original Plan, Illustrated
All potential claims
Claims made before bar
date
Escrow funds
Other creditors
GF
Barredclaims
Collateral
C/I
![Page 11: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Just a Crazy Idea?State law and GF functions aside:• Not unlike how bankruptcy courts handle liquidating
claims• GFs use actuaries to value shortfall claims in bankruptcy
why not the other way around?• Would have theoretical merit if:
› Could completely identify all claimants› Could perfectly value their claims› You were positive you had excess
• Will come back to why it is a crazy idea shortly
![Page 12: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Maine’s Long Tail Claims• Maine’s long state law limitations periods• Two years from date of injury• Six year period of repose• Latent toxic claims possible
![Page 13: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
The Bankruptcy Court Ruling
• Denied confirmation of the Plan, without prejudice• Made no determination as to whether there were
excess funds• Debtors’ property interest in the funds determined by
state law• Property interest as of commencement of case was, at
most, a “chose in action to recover excess funds….”• Amended plan with placeholder (in the alternative) for the
objectionable provision, pending outcome of appeal.
![Page 14: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Bankruptcy Court Ruling, continued
“Chose in Action” versus “Immediate Right to Collateral”
![Page 15: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Primary Legal Arguments Advanced by Debtors
• Usual bankruptcy court functions• Federal/state preemption issues regarding
ownership/timing for return of excess collateral• Bar date/channeling injunction protect both injured
workers and guaranty funds, while making provision for the excess
![Page 16: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Primary Legal Arguments Against the Proposed Plan
• State law says no immediate right to collateral• Escrow funding mechanism impractical for long tail claims• Third party channeling injunctions disfavored and subject
to challenge
![Page 17: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Policy Considerations Raised by Amicus Parties
• Focused on broader policy implications beyond this case• It is a crazy idea
› Entire concept disrupts bargain struck by state Legislatures between employer and employee
› Undercuts function of guaranty funds› What happens if there isn’t enough in the end?
– To injured workers– To guaranty funds
![Page 18: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
McCarran-Ferguson
• No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any state for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance…” 15 U.S.C. §1012(b).
• Has been applied to prohibit the bankruptcy code to modify state law insurance provisions.
![Page 19: Prime Tanning (In Re Irving Tanning): Threat to State Self-Insurance Law](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042718/56815c94550346895dcaa361/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
What Next?
• If ruling upheld?› State law critical› Alienation clauses› “String rights”› Forfeiture provisions
• If ruling reversed?