On December 1, Bankruptcy Rule 2019 became effective.  This rule relates to the disclosure requirements in Chapter 9 and Chapter 11 cases for holders of distressed loans and eliminates the requirement for the disclosure of the price paid for a claim in bankruptcy and the date the claim was acquired (except in very limited circumstances) in Rule 2019 verified statements.  Rule 2019.

Judge Buchwald of the U.S.

Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.

The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".

Structured finance transaction documents have typically included subordination provisions in their post-default waterfalls, effectively changing a swap counterparty’s right to get paid from above that of the noteholders to below that of the noteholders.

In its ruling on Wednesday 27 July in the matter of Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Lte & Anor [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the appeal by Lehman Brothers Special Finance Inc. ("LSF") relating to the validity of an alleged anti-deprivation provision known as a 'flip' provision which, has the effect of altering the payment priority order as a result of a bankruptcy of the relevant swap counterparty, in this case Lehman Brothers.

On July 25, 2011, JPMorgan Bank filed a third-party complaint against the FDIC in the Southern District of Ohio, claiming the FDIC indemnified JPMorgan when it agreed to buy assets from Washington Mutual, which went bankrupt in 2008.  JPMorgan alleges that it only accepted certain narrow WaMu liabilities in its agreement with the FDIC, specifically excluding liabilities relating to WaMu's pre-closing activities.  Western and Southern Life Insurance Company has since sued JPMorgan for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the sale of $650 million in mortgage-backed securi

On July 6, the FDIC adopted a final rule addressing the rights and powers of the FDIC as a receiver of a nonviable systemic financial company under the orderly liquidation provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act.  The rule addresses: (i) recoupment of compensation from senior executives and directors as well as the receiver's power to avoid fraudulent and preferential transfers; (ii) the priority of claims; and (iii) the receivership administrative claims process as well as secured claims procedures.  The lin