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

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.

On October 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan of the District of New Jersey addressed two issues critically important to intellectual property licensees and purchasers: (i) can a trademark  licensee use section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to keep licensed marks following a  debtor-licensor’s rejection of a license agreement?; and (ii) can a “free and clear” sale of  intellectual property eliminate any rights retained by a licensee? In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., et  al., 2014 WL 5508177 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2014).

Earlier this year, we reported on a decision limiting a secured creditor's right to credit bid purchased debt (capping the credit bid at the discounted price paid for the debt) to facilitate an auction in Fisker Automotive Holdings' chapter 11 case.¹ In the weeks that followed, the debtor held a competitive (nineteen-round) auction and ultimately selected Wanxiang America Corporation, rather than the secured creditor, as the w

The UK Treasury and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have been drip-feeding the industry rules and practical details of the transfer of consumer credit (CC) regulation to FCA. FCA has now published the final form of its detailed rules in its Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), with feedback and practical advice. The rules apply from 1 April 2014 with limited grace periods only. It is critical that all firms carrying on credit-related regulated activities know what the changes mean for them.

FRC has issued guidance to banks' directors on financial reporting of solvency and liquidity risks, and the definition of going concern, in the context of post-crisis reforms and central bank and government support. (Source: Guidance for Directors of Banks)

 The Government has decided to create a Special Administration Regime (SAR) for systemically important payment and securities settlement systems. It is concerned that, were one of these market infrastructures to become insolvent, the administrator or liquidator would have to work towards maximising value for creditors, rather than keeping critical payment and settlement services running. The Bank of England would have the power to apply to court for an order declaring the start of SAR proceedings. Ensuring continuity of service would be among the special administrator’s objectives.

The Government has fed back on the responses to DBIS’s consultation on the effect of bankruptcy on the ability to access a basic bank account. Responses to the consultation have shown that only 27% of people subject to a bankruptcy order are able to retain their bank account. A bank's decision not to offer a bank account to a bankrupt is mainly based on the bankrupt's credit record, rather than on the risk of the trustee making a claim against the bank, a risk that the consultation process has shown is more perceived than real.

BBA has published a briefing paper setting out its position on the Commission’s proposal for a bank recovery and resolution directive. It suggests that certain powers, such as appointing a Special Manager or requiring a plan for debt restructuring, are more akin to resolution tools and should not be used until the firm has reached its point of non-viability. This also applies to the bail-in tool, which cannot be used as the first or default option.

On August 2, 2012, in the case ofIn re MBS Management Services, Inc.,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a retail electricity agreement with a real estate management company constituted a forward contract protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”).