In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.¹ The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its

On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).

In a May 4, 2015 opinion¹ , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed  its broad and literal interpretation of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a  safe harbor for transfers made in connection with a securities contract that might otherwise be  attacked as preferences or fraudulent transfers.

Royal Decree Law 4/2014, intended to promote efficiency in Spanish insolvency proceedings, is officially enacted with some important updates.

The Spanish legislature has finally enacted Royal Decree Law 4/2014 (the March Reform). Now known as Law 17/2014, of 30 September (the Act), the new law implements urgent measures regarding refinancing and restructuring of corporate debt. In addition to formally enacting the March Reform, the Spanish legislature included a few updates that are worth highlighting.

Pre-Insolvency Communication

Luxembourg court decisions allow secured lenders to enforce Gecina share pledge.

A controversial insolvency dispute winding its way through courts in Spain and Luxembourg may reinforce the rights of secured lenders to enforce financial collateral within an insolvency proceeding. While the recent Luxembourg Tribunal decision enforcing a financial collateral pledge for payment default appears to favor the secured lenders, a potentially contradictory decision from the Spanish Commercial Courts throws the issue into uncertain territory.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in Edward S. Weisfelner, as Litigation Trustee of the LB Creditor Trust v. Fund 1., et al.

Market participants welcome a clarification extending equitable subordination exemptions granted Sareb to those subsequently purchasing debt from Sareb.

On November 30, 2013, the Spanish legislator approved a recent amendment to Spanish insolvency law, introduced in March 2013, to clarify that a claim transferred to Spanish “bad bank” Sareb, and subsequently sold by Sareb to a third party, will also be exempt from equitable subordination risk.

Background