Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.
A bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York recently held that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent a debtor’s creditors from bringing state-law fraudulent conveyance actions that challenge a leveraged buyout of the debtor. Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), No. 10-4609 (REG), --- B.R. ----, 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014).
TheLehman Brothers bankruptcy court has determined that the contractually specified methodology for conducting the liquidation of a swap agreement is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the bankruptcy, even if the selected methodology would be more favorable to the non-defaulting counterparty than the liquidation methodology that would apply absent the bankruptcy.See Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Deriv. Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 08-13555, ---B.R.
A Western District of New York bankruptcy court has held that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to leveraged buy-outs of privately held securities. See Cyganowski v. Lapides (In re Batavia Nursing Home, LLC), No. 12-1145 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013).
On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding1 holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.
Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc1 case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.
FSA has made a statement explaining how the bank’s failure to comply with FSA’s liquidity guidelines as they applied to it was critical. It says that while the bank’s downfall was not directly due to the breaches, the breaches happened at a critical period for the financial markets and at a time FSA needed banks to keep it up to date on their liquidity. (Source: FSA Explains Liquidity Importance)
FSA has published a set of frequently asked questions designed to help readers understand MG Global’s insolvency position and investors’ rights under it. (Source: MF Global Investors – Your Questions Answered)
FSA has won a case in the High Court in which the court held one individual and two businesses were operating a collective investment scheme without authorisation. The court banned James Maynard from selling land for business purposes in the UK for life and made a bankruptcy order against him. It ordered him and Countrywide Land Holdings Limited to pay £31,896,194 to FSA and ordered Plateau Development & Land Limited, now in liquidation, to pay £918,975. Tracey McDermott said there was a low probability of getting meaningful compensation but that FSA had scored an important victory.
WorldSpreads Limited has become the third firm to enter into the Special Administration Regime. The firm, a spread betting company, entered into the regime following the discovery of accounting irregularities which led to a finding that the firm could not continue in business. (Source: Firm Enters Special Administration)