On August 11, the Honorable Allan L. Gropper issued an opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of several property-specific special purpose subsidiaries (SPE Debtors), including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc.
With the possibility of a major stock brokerage liquidation appearing more likely than it has been in recent periods, the effect of a liquidation on customers and financial counterparties has become of great interest to many of our clients and others.
What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?
The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.
Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?
A federal judge in New York – the Hon. Richard J. Sullivan – mostly granted JP Morgan Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss claims brought on behalf of unsecured creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. related to JPM’s requirement that Lehman Brothers Inc., LBH’s broker-dealer subsidiary, pledge and post extra collateral in September 2008, shortly before LBI filed for bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently resolved a split within the circuit when it held that a bankruptcy court has the power to recharacterize debt as equity.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) liquidation proceeding confirming the LBI trustee’s determination that certain claims relating to TBA contracts do not qualify as customer claims against LBI’s estate.
Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed to amend its Bankruptcy Rules, 17 CFR Part 190, to establish cleared over-the-counter derivatives as a separate account class for the purpose of calculating “net equity” and “allowed net equity” for each customer in the event of the bankruptcy of a futures commission merchant.
The District Court sustained claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and deepening insolvency asserted by the successor-in-interest to the Committee of Unsecured Creditors of DVI, a defunct company, against DVI’s former officers and directors.
In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.