On 27 December 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the insurance and reinsurance undertaking LIG Insurance SA, ultimately, commencing bankruptcy procedures against LIG Insurance SA and withdrawing its license to carry on insurance and reinsurance activity (FSA Decision 2347/2016).

According to the FSA, on 31 October 2016 the company had: (i) negative own capital of RON 56.2 million; and (ii) a liquidity ratio of 0.44, resulting in concern over its capacity to cover its due obligations using own funds.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

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).

On 27 July 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the Romanian insurance undertaking Carpatica Asig SA, considering several audit and assessment reports. The outcome of the FSA analysis was the commencement of the bankruptcy procedures against Carpatica Asig SA.

On 26 August 2015, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the Romanian insurance undertaking ASTRA SA, considering the report of the special administrator, KPMG Advisory. 

According to the FSA, on 30 June 2015, ASTRA SA had: (i) a negative available solvency margin of approximately RON 871 million (approximately EUR 197 million), (ii) a liquidity ratio of 0.03, and (iii) a capital shortage of approximately RON 968 million (approximately EUR 220 million). 

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.