In November 2008, Circuit City filed for bankruptcy protection. Circuit City had the same business model as Best Buy: selling electronic equipment in large retail stores. Other retailers with that business model are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with online sales from companies such as Amazon, eBay, or Walmart. Best Buy’s store sales have fallen for the last eight quarters while expenses increase. Although Best Buy has a large cash buffer, many analysts believe it is only a matter of time before Best Buy also files for bankruptcy, perhaps in 2013.

On 19 September 2012, the Norton Rose Construction and Engineering team presented a breakfast briefing titled: “Financial Distress in Construction Projects: What happens when the wheels fall off?” 

This briefing identified the warnings signs of insolvency, what steps parties can take to minimise exposure, how best to respond to a party’s insolvency and the options available to prevent insolvency in the first place.

A federal court jury in Manhattan returned verdicts on Monday, November 12, largely exonerating the two most senior Reserve Management Company executives in a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action accusing them of fraud.

The administrator for the longstanding schemes of arrangement for the insolvent London Market "KWELM companies" (Kingscroft Insurance Company Limited, Walbrook Insurance Company Limited, El Paso Insurance Company Limited, Lime Street Insurance Company Limited, and Mutual Reinsurance Company Limited), is finally preparing to wrap up. Walbrook and El Paso previously paid all outstanding claims. On September 30, 2012, the remaining three KWELM companies declared their ultimate dividend percentages and sent final "top-up" payments for agreed claims to scheme creditors.

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.

Gothard v Fell; in the matter of Allco Financial Group Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (2012) 88 ACSR 328

On 15 May 2012, Jacobson J of the Federal Court of Australia allowed an application by Receivers to be released from confidentiality undertakings so that use could be made of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) examination transcripts.

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.

Background

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision in the administration of the Hastie Group Limited (Hastie Group)¹ illustrates a number of important points for administrators, secured parties and purchasers under the new regime established under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA). If you would like to discuss the implications of this case with any of our PPSA or insolvency litigation experts, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The facts

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