On May 5th, the Senate voted 93-5 to adopt an amendment proposed by Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby that would give the FDIC authority to liquidate failing financial institutions without the creation of a controversial $50 billion "bailout" fund. Instead, the FDIC would use a new line of credit with the Treasury Department, supported by the assets of the failed institution, to pay the liquidation expenses.

On April 26th, the Eleventh Circuit held that the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act prohibits a federal district court from enjoining the FDIC. A trial court had initially imposed a TRO against a failing bank prohibiting it from taking any action with respect to $1 billion worth of mortgage proceeds it held in trust for petitioner, Bank of America, who held legal title. When the FDIC was appointed receiver, the FDIC moved to dissolve the TRO. The trial court refused converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction.

On April 12th, the Sixth Circuit held that a Chapter 13 debtor has standing to bring an avoidance action even when the bankruptcy trustee does not. It further held that the defendant mortgage company perfected its lien by equitably converting the lien on plaintiff's manufactured home to one for real property when the state court entered judgment on defendant's lis pendens claim. Since that order was entered during the 90 day preference period, the lien was avoidable.

On April 1st, the FDIC closed on a sale of an equity interest in a limited liability company (LLC) created to hold certain assets transferred from 19 failed bank receiverships. The purchaser of the interest in the Multibank Structured Transaction Single Family Residential 2010-1 is Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation. The sale was conducted through a competitive auction held on February 24, 2010. Nine different qualified groups submitted bids to purchase either a 50% leveraged ownership interest or a 20% unleveraged ownership interest in the newly formed LLC.

On March 24th, the Sixth Circuit joined seven other federal appellate courts in holding that negative equity is included in a creditor's purchase money security interest and is not subject to a bankruptcy court's cramdown authority under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Nuvell Credit Corp. v. Westfall.  

This week, in a 2-1 decision affirming the District Court’s reversal of a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured creditors do not have a right as a matter of law to credit bid their claim at an auction pursuant to a plan of reorganization where the debtor intends to impose the plan on its secured creditors through a “cramdown” under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code; i.e., a plan providing the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claim.

On March 18th, the Fifth Circuit held that a U.S. bankruptcy court may offer avoidance relief under a foreign country's law in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiffs had been appointed trustees by a Nevis court in a Nevis winding up petition. Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 15 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. alleging that the debtor had transferred assets to put them out of the reach of the Nevis court. The U.S.

On March 1st, the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings and SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities upheld the SIPC trustee's method for determining the net equity held by the victims of Madoff's fraud. The SIPC trustee defines net equity as the amount of cash deposited by the customer into his BLMIS customer account less any amounts withdrawn.

On March 1st, the Seventh Circuit held that negative equity is included in a creditor's purchase money security interest and is not subject to a bankruptcy court's cramdown authority under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Aubrey Howard.

On February 10th, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed, in one opinion, two separate appeals arising from a company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At the outset, the Court held that a severance payment to the firm's former CEO was a fraudulent transfer. The former CEO was an insider, since he was still CEO when the severance agreement was signed, even though he was not employed when he received the actual payment. The Court held further that the company did not receive equivalent value for the severance payment.