On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).
The infamous history of MF Global is closer to ending after the administrator for the bankrupt holding company filed a proposed notice of settlement that, if approved, would provide a payment of US $132 million to resolve most outstanding litigation against the company and individual former officers by certain customers and other creditors. The funds would come from insurance proceeds from policies maintained on behalf of the former officers of MF Global that were named as defendants in the litigation, including John Corizine, former chief executive officer.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposed a rule that would require US global systemically important banking institutions to amend their contracts for certain common financial transactions to preclude the immediate termination of such contracts if a firm enters bankruptcy or a resolution process. Relevant contracts – termed “qualified financial contracts” – that would have to be amended include those used for derivatives, securities lending and short time financing such as repurchase agreements.
On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it. The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re Tribune Co.
A federal appeals court in Illinois held that Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Bank of New York (collectively, “BNYM”) were on “inquiry notice” that Sentinel Management Group, Inc. improperly used customer funds as collateral for a loan prior to the firm’s collapse in August 2007. (Sentinel was an investment management firm registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a futures commission merchant that claimed it specialized in short-term cash management for hedge funds, individuals, financial institutions and other FCMs.
Twenty-one major global banks have already signed a relaunched stay protocol developed by the International Swap Dealers Association and other leading industry organizations in coordination with the Financial Stability Board. The purpose of the protocol is to help ensure the orderly resolution of a troubled bank by having firms voluntarily agree to abide by foreign resolution regimes in connection with cross-border transactions. A prior protocol was signed by 18 major banks in November 2014. The relaunched protocol increases the types of covered financial contracts.
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 Trustee for the Liquidation of MF Global Inc. – the defunct futures commission merchant that filed for bankruptcy in October 2011 – received approval from the US Bankruptcy Court overseeing its dissolution to make a final, cumulative 95 percent distribution on all allowed general unsecured creditor claims.
Unsecured general creditors of defunct MF Global, Inc. (other than those of its parent company MF Global Holdings Ltd.) will receive a final payment from the firm, giving them a total recovery of 95 percent of their approved claims, under a proposal made last week by the overseers of the liquidation of the firm and its parent company.
The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. [1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.
Background