Many bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the general tenet that an obligation secured only by a mortgage on the Debtor’s principal residence is immune from modification or avoidance by the Debtor. Sections 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code protect residential mortgages from being “stripped-down” to the value of the subject real estate or subjecting the terms of the underlying obligation to modification.

The European Commission has published a paper on its study covering pre-insolvency, early intervention, reorganisation and liquidation.

What should be the remedy when a bankruptcy court holds that a security interest is avoidable as a preferential transfer, but the value of the security interest is not readily ascertainable? The Ninth Circuit recently addressed this issue in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re: Taylors), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5793 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court held that, since the value of the security interest was not readily ascertainable, the only available remedy is for the bankruptcy court to return the security interest itself, not its value, to the bankruptcy estate.

On 25 March 2010, HM Treasury published a consultation paper which proposes improvements to the protection and payment of benefits for policyholders of insurers in financial difficulty. In particular, the proposals address certain gaps in the regime for insurers in administration in contrast to the regime applied in liquidation.

On 12 March 2010, the FSA published the statement that it had provided to the court appointed examiner of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which is referred to in his wider report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

View FSA statement to the US bankruptcy court examiner on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, 12 March 2010

The FSA has published the statement that it has provided to the court appointed examiner of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which is referred to in his wider report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers published on 11 March 2010.

View FSA statement to the US bankruptcy court examiner on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, 12 March 2010

HM Treasury has published a consultation paper which is entitled Special Resolution Regime: the draft FSMA (Contribution to Costs of Special Resolution Regime) Regulations 2010.

This consultation seeks views on all aspects of the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Contribution to Costs of Special Resolution Regime) Regulations 2010 which will be made under the new FSMA provisions when clause 28 of the Financial Services Bill is enacted.

The deadline for comments on the consultation is 15 June 2010.

Introduction

The High Court recently considered, in European Bank Limited v Robb Evans of Robb Evans & Associates, the nature and extent of a "usual undertaking as to damages" given by a receiver in accordance with Part 28, rule 7(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW). In doing so, it overturned the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal to reinstate the trial judge's finding that the receiver was liable for substantial losses suffered by a third party deprived of the funds which were at the heart of the dispute.

Background

Introduction

The FSA has published a short update on Lifemark S.A. (Lifemark). The FSA reports that on 11 February 2010, the Luxembourg financial services regulator, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (the CSSF), applied to the Court in Luxembourg to extend the appointment of Eric Collard of KPMG as provisional administrator in respect of Lifemark.