31/10/2016 Pensions Update October 2016 http://bakerxchange.com/rv/ff002b980788f142ab3974e23146b6f2e393d02b 1/4 Pensions Update October 2016 In this issue Court of Appeal clarifies treatment of pensions on bankruptcy PPF publishes consultation on 2017/2018 levy DWP consults on valuing pensions for the advice requirement Regulator declares rule change void Next steps in leaving the European Union Committee publishes new evidence on regulation of pension schemes Regulator launches blog Government cancels plans t
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12-mc-115 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2014) [click for opinion]
Carney v. Beracha, No. 12-cv-00180, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16460 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2014) [click for opinion]
The Seventh Circuit has reversed the district court’s decision in the Sentinel matter and ruled that the Bankruptcy Court’s allowance of a pre-petition transfer and authorization of a post-petition transfer of assets by Sentinel to its FCM customers was permitted under the Bankruptcy Code. The District Court had previously avoided the $22.5 million pre-petition transfer of funds to FCM customers and the $297 million post-petition transfer of funds authorized by the Bankruptcy Court.
In Re: Katherine Elizabeth Barnet, No. 13-612 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2013) [click for opinion]
Tenth Circuit holds that Canadian nationals who conspire to commit a breach of fiduciary duty against a Delaware corporation operating exclusively in Oklahoma are subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma despite their lack of physical contact with the state. Canadian law firm alleged to have assisted the conspirators is not, however, subject to personal jurisdiction.
Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs., 474 B.R. 76 (2012)
The trustee for the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA") liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS") filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court against Maxam Absolute Return Fund Ltd. ("Maxam"), seeking the return of about $100 million distributed to Maxam by BLMIS. Maxam answered the complaint and then sued the trustee in the Cayman Islands seeking a declaration that it was not required to return the money.
In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 11-33335-HDH-15 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June 13, 2012)
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court held that sales of assets pursuant to chapter 11 plans must permit credit bidding by their secured lenders in order to satisfy the requirements for confirmation of a chapter 11 “cramdown” plan.1
Secured lenders have had long-held expectations of certain protections in the event the borrower files for bankruptcy.