On July 30, 2010 the Italian Parliament passed Law 122/20101 which, among others, improved the restructuring proceedings governed by the Italian Bankruptcy Law2 (“IBL”).

The improvements operate on two fronts of restructuring deals which had proven to be still unclear (and thus risky) despite the recent reform:

In a decision filed on July 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court decision upholding a bankruptcy court order granting summary judgment to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (American Home) in connection with a repurchase transaction entered into in 2007 under which American Home sold certain certificates to Bear Stearns International Ltd. (Bear Stearns) for $19,534,000 and agreed to re-purchase the certificates at a later date for $19,636,879.07. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 2676383 (3d Cir.

Reversing both the bankruptcy court and the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a trademark licensing agreement had been substantially performed and was therefore not subject to rejection under §365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Exide Technologies, Case No. 08-1872 (3d Cir., June 1, 2010) (Roth, J.) (Ambro, J., concurring).

On May 11, the Board of Directors of the FDIC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “NPR”) proposing a rule which would govern the treatment by the FDIC, as conservator or receiver of a failed insured depository institution (a “Bank”), of financial assets previously transferred by such Bank in a securitization or participation transaction. The proposed rule would create a safe harbor to confirm legal isolation of these financial assets if certain conditions are satisfied.

On May 5th, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declaring that a party's right to setoff in an International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") Master Agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy unless "strict mutuality" exists.

On May 5, 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declaring that a party’s right to setoff in an ISDA Master Agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy unless strict mutuality exists. (Decision and Order).

KEY POINTS

• A US Bankruptcy Court decision held that loans to a homebuilding company that subsequently filed for bankruptcy constituted a fraudulent transfer.

On October 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, in Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle, et al., unequivocally ruled that, under California law, directors of either an insolvent corporation or a corporation in the more elusively defined “zone of insolvency” do not owe a fiduciary duty of care or loyalty to creditors. In so ruling, California joins Delaware in clarifying directors’ duties when the corporation is insolvent or in the zone of insolvency.

Background

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that secured creditors do not have a right to credit bid their claim when the sale of a debtor’s assets is conducted under a plan of reorganization.

The bankruptcy court's opinion exemplifies the second guessing that can confront solvency opinion providers and highlights issues that providers should carefully vet with experienced legal counsel.