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.

The outcome of the TOUSA appeal has been much anticipated and closely watched by the lending community, their counsel and advisors, and legal scholars. On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion (found here), reversing the District Court for the Southern District of Florida and affirming the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, at least insofar as to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings, but not remedies.

On December 22, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware inIn re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II LLC ¹ dismissed with prejudice a mezzanine borrower’s bankruptcy case for bad faith under Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the court clarified that the standard in the Third Circuit to evaluate the good faith of a debtor seeking shelter under the umbrella of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is an objective one and does not consider the subjective good faith of a debtor as do courts within the Secon d Circuit.

In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).

In Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill, Ltd.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-8266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2011), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to a small, private leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction that posed no systemic risk to the stability of the financial markets.

Yesterday, a federal judge preliminary approved a $125 million cash settlement for former shareholders of New Century Financial Corp. (“New Century”). New Century was the second largest subprime mortgage originator before it filed for bankruptcy in April 2007. In February 2008, Michael J.

Late last week, the Governing Committee of the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) met to discuss the restructuring of Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Cordoba (CajaSur).

On Friday, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions closed Washington First International Bank, headquartered in Seattle, Washington, and appointed the FDIC as receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with East West Bank, Pasadena, California, to assume all of the deposits of the failed bank.

Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the close of a Rule 144A sale of $1.8 billion principal amount of notes backed by 103 non-agency residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) from seven failed bank receiverships.

Yesterday afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee held Part II of its series of hearings entitled “Too Big to Fail – the Role for Bankruptcy and Antitrust Law in Financial Regulation Reform.” Yesterday’s hearing focused on proposed financia