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:
Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC1 that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.
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