The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

Op 13 juli 2016 zijn de consultatieversies van het wetsvoorstel Wet herstel en afwikkeling van verzekeraars (het "Consultatie Wetsvoorstel") en bijbehorende memorie van toelichting ("MvT') gepubliceerd. De consultatieperiode is op 28 augustus 2016 gesloten. Met het Consultatie Wetsvoorstel beoogt de minister het wettelijk kader voor herstel en afwikkeling van verzekeraars te versterken.

Today, 26 November 2015, the Act implementing the European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Banks and Investment Firms (the “Implementation Act”) has entered into force. The purpose of the Implementation Act is to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") into Netherlands law and to facilitate the application of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation").

Legislation implementing the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") in Netherlands law and facilitating the application of the EU Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation") was approved by the Upper Chamber of the Netherlands parliament on 10 November 2015 and is expected to enter into force before the end of this year. The new law – the "European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms Implementation Act" – will be referred to below as the "Implementation Act".

On 27 May 2015, the bill for the Act implementing the European framework for the recovery and resolution of banks and investment firms (the "Implementation Act") and the explanatory memorandum thereto (the "Explanatory Memorandum") were published. The purpose of the Implementation Act is to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and to facilitate the application of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRMR").

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.

The American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 issued today a 400-page report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”). The Report is the result of a two-year effort by 150 practitioner-ABI members.[1] Without considering the likelihood of Congressional passage in the near term, we will evaluate each significant proposed change separately in subsequent Alerts over the next several weeks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Oct. 16, 2014, held that a “good faith transferee” in a fraudulent transfer suit “is entitled” to keep what it received “only to the extent” it gave “value.” Williams v. FDIC (In re Positive Health Management), 2014 WL 5293705, at *8 (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2014). Reversing in part the district and bankruptcy courts, the Fifth Circuit narrowed their holding that the debtor had “received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the debtor’s cash transfers.” Id. at *1-2.