depositions of various Insurance Department employees. The Court, at the outset, rejects any objection, assertion or contention by Counsel for Mazzella that he has been precluded from full participation during the hearings or during pre-hearing proceedings, particularly when the extent of the participation afforded to Mazzella was not mandated by the Act. / (A) As for the merits, this Court has held repeatedly that the Liquidator has broad discretion to fix the rights and liabilities of claims as of a date certain and that the Court must defer to the Liquidator’s authority and discretion in the administration of liquidation and rehabilitation proceedings unless there has been an abuse of that discretion. See, e.g., Foster v. Monsow Medical Foundation, 667 A.2d 18, 21 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Koken v. Fidelity Mutual Life Ins.
holding that the recognition power is not limited to a determination of the government to be recognized but rather includes the power to take actions without which the power of recognition might be thwarted holding that the statutory liquidators power to recoup assets of liquidated insurer should not be encumbered by the courts examination of correctness of liquidators actions during liquidation recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals