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 Slovenian legislation includes the following types of in rem securities relating to: (i) real properties – mortgage (hipoteka), land debt (zemljiški dolg), real encumbrance (stvarno breme); and (ii) movables and property rights, respectively – pledge (zastavna pravica), retention of title (pridržek lastninske pravice), transfers by way of security (prenos v zavarovanje), and assignment by way of security (odstop v zavarovanje).

Under Bulgarian law, security interests over assets can be created by way of a pledge (залог) of chattels and receivables or a mortgage (ипотека) over real property.

Austrian law recognises pledges (Pfandrechte), security transfers (Sicherungsübereignungen) and security assignments (Sicherungszession).

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.

According to article 11 of Poland’s Bankruptcy and reorganisation law as of 28 Feb-ruary 2003 (Journal of laws 2009, No. 175, position 1361, as amended), a debtor who is a legal person (including, in particular, a limited liability company) is considered to be insolvent when the value of its liabilities exceeds the value of its assets, even if the debtor continues to pay its liabilities (balance sheet insolvency).

On May 25, 2012, Residential Capital LLC (“ResCap”) filed a complaint in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to extend the automatic stay over 27 MBS lawsuits against it, its affiliates, and its executives while it undergoes bankruptcy restructuring.  ResCap alleges that all of the lawsuits against its non-debtor affiliates are inextricably connected to the debtor affiliates, and that such lawsuits will drain the debtors’ estates by forcing those entities to undergo extensive discovery and face significant indem

On May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases for RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC and its affiliate (together, the “Debtors”). The Court held that when a debtor proposes to sell a secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of the creditor’s lien pursuant to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, the debtor cannot deny the creditor the opportunity to “credit bid” in the sale without cause.

The bankruptcy case of TOUSA, Inc. and its various subsidiaries (collectively “Tousa”) is one where lenders have seen their fortunes rise and fall. On March 15, 2012, they fell again when the Eleventh Circuit¹ (the “Circuit Court”) reversed the District Court’s opinion and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court’s order, which had disgorged over $400 million from Tousa’s senior lenders and avoided certain guarantees and liens granted to them by the Conveying Subsidiaries (defined below).