On September 6, 2012, the National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUA) sued UBS in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.  The NCUA filed the suit in its capacity as Liquidating Agent of U.S.

In Notice 2012-39 (the “Notice”), the IRS issued guidance announcing its intention to issue regulations with respect to certain transfers of intangible property by a U.S. corporation to a foreign corporation in a reorganization described in section 361 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), citing significant policy concerns involving certain intellectual property transfers that permit U.S. persons to repatriate earnings without U.S. income taxation. The IRS’ position in the Notice will impact repatriation planning strategies.

Background

On August 10, the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for Colonial Bank filed five lawsuits – three in Alabama state court, one in New York federal court, and one in California federal court – seeking $741 million in damages from a number of investment banks, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Inc., and others, for making allegedly false and misleading statements that induced Colonial Bank into buying mortgage-backed securities.

On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in the bankruptcy case for MBS Management Services, Inc. (the “Debtor”). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion finding that an electric requirements agreement was a “forward contract” and, therefore, that payments made on the agreement were exempt from avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code.

I. Factual Background

The Delaware bankruptcy court in the KB Toys, Inc. cases recently held that a claims purchaser takes a claim subject to certain disabilities of the claim as held by the seller, regardless of whether the claim transfer is deemed a “sale” or an “assignment.” SeeIn re KB Toys, Inc., Case No. 04-10120 (KJC) (Bankr. Del. May 4, 2012). In so ruling, the Delaware court’s decision is somewhat at odds with the decision issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Enron bankruptcy cases. See Enron Corp. v.

After several years of unusually few corporate defaults, there has recently been an uptick in corporations failing to satisfy their bond and loan obligations. In a number of cases, the debts in question are part of multiple-lien or multi-tranche financing structures that incorporate complex subordination packages. The agreements at issue often go beyond merely subordinating rights to payments.

It is common for lenders to require borrowers to agree to pay a higher interest rate, known as the default rate, following an event of default under a loan. Some loan agreements also require the borrower to pay a fee in the event of a late payment. If the borrower files for bankruptcy protection, the Bankruptcy Code affords special protection to secured creditors with respect to collecting interest.

It is common knowledge that the Bankruptcy Code provides a debtor with a “fresh start” by allowing it to discharge prepetition claims. Similarly, section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee or debtor in possession to sell property of the estate “free and clear” of prior claims. These two concepts, while relatively straightforward, raise a fundamental question — when does a creditor hold a “claim” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code?

In the 2010 decision of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d 298 (3d. Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a plan proponent could deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid on its collateral when the sale was made pursuant to a plan of reorganization. That holding was a surprise to many given that secured creditors were specifically authorized to credit bid in stand-alone sales under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. A year or so later, another circuit court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, came to the opposite conclusion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on May 1, 2012 that a provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allowing the assignment of insurance policies as part of a bankruptcy reorganization overrides the anti-assignment clause of an insurance policy.  In re: Federal-Mogul Global Inc., No.