This blog series has been following the continuing flow of large security breaches of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) and how affected providers and insurers have been responding to their discovery. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation’s North Bronx Healthcare Network (“HHC”) has recently become perhaps the largest marcher in the parade of PHI security breaches with a reported 1,700,000 persons affected.

Reversing a controversial decision and judgment of the bankruptcy court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has held that a group of lenders who received payment in settlement of their defaulted debt from the proceeds of new loans secured by the assets of certain subsidiaries of TOUSA, Inc. which were not themselves liable on that debt, did not receive fraudulent transfers.

On February 16th, the Third Circuit addressed an issue of first impression and held that the discounted cash flow method was the proper measure of damages under Bankruptcy Code Section 562 when a market price cannot be determined. The parties had entered into a $1.2 billion repurchase agreement for a portfolio of home mortgages. On the day the debtor defaulted, the distressed state of the credit markets made it commercially unreasonable for the purchaser to sell the portfolio and the market price would not reflect the asset's worth.

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Court") [1] reversed a controversial 2009 decision from the Bankruptcy Court in the litigation styled Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v. Citicorp North America, Inc.

In a 113-page decision (click here to read decision) that is sure to be applauded by lenders and bond traders alike, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in overturning a Bankruptcy Court opinion that has caused lenders much concern, has issued a stern ruling that provides a bulwark against efforts by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy to expand the scope of the fraudulent conveyance provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.

Bank of America N.A. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. 439 B.R. 811 (2010) (U.S. Bankr. Ct., S.D.N.Y.)

The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Third Circuit") issued an opinion on February 16, 2011 in the American Home Mortgage chapter 11 proceeding that upheld a determination by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") on the valuation of a creditor’s claim that in connection with the termination and acceleration of a mortgage loan repurchase agreement.1 The decision is significant because the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision that the post-acceleration market value of the mortgage loans was not a relevant m

Chinese telecom equipment firm Huawei Technologies said Monday that it would wait for a decision from President Obama before it acts on a U.S. national security panel’s recommendation that it divest 3Leaf Systems, a small U.S. technology firm that Huawei bought out of bankruptcy in May. Huawei, which recently claimed the rank of the world’s second-largest supplier of telecommunications equipment, acquired 3Leaf—a start-up provider of server technologies—without first notifying the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

On February 16, 2011, the Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court's order determining the value of mortgage loans in the context of a 2006 repurchase agreement. Buyer Calyon argued that the mortgage loan portfolio sold to it by American Home Mortgage had a market price of only $670 million, as compared to its $1.15 billion contractual repurchase price, and that American Home Mortgage was required to pay Calyon the $480 million difference under a repo agreement.

On February 7, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its eagerly awaited opinion in the consolidated appealIn re: DBSD North America, Inc., Docket Nos. 10-1175, 10-1201, 10-1352, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 27007.