trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/EMu9u5NSlPp1satc2LYdAw2 content esgSubNav
Log in to other products

 /


Looking for more?

Contact Us
In This List

Judge throws out CarVal's motion, deposition request related to Ambac Assurance segregated account rehabilitation

Blog

Banking Essentials Newsletter - April Edition

Blog

Tracking Credit Risk of a Major U.S. Retailer

Blog

Banking Essentials Newsletter: March Edition - Part 2

Blog

A Bank Takes Its Project Finance Assessments to a New Level


Judge throws out CarVal's motion, deposition request related to Ambac Assurance segregated account rehabilitation

Ambac FinancialGroup Inc. said April 5 that Judge Richard Niess of the CircuitCourt of Dane County, Wis., denied a motion to show cause filed by severalinvestment entities managed by CarVal Investors LLC that hold bonds insured byAmbac Assurance Corp.whose policies have been allocated to the segregated account of Ambac Assurance.

CarVal asked the court to order Wisconsin InsuranceCommissioner Theodore Nickel, as the rehabilitator of the segregated account, to show why heshould not increase payment with respect to insurance policies that have beenallocated to the segregated account. Niess denied the motion partly because ofCarVal's lack of standing in the rehabilitation proceedings, according to thenews release.

CarVal also sought deposition testimony from representativesof Ambac Assurance, but the judge rejected its right to a deposition andgranted the commissioner's motion to quash the deposition notice.

The ruling came a few months after investor Nick Vouloumanosraised concerns aboutthe relationship of the Ambac Financial board and the creditors that it isnegotiating with for a recapitalization of Ambac Assurance. Vouloumanos saidthe Ambac Financial board may be under the influence of an ad hoc group ofcreditors, including CarVal, Canyon and Davidson Kempner, that is pushing forlarge and timely distributions. He claimed that creditors do not have the bestinterest of equity holders in mind and pointed out that some of the boardmembers were appointed to other boards by certain creditors and have served onthe same board as some of the creditors.