The FDIC Board approved a final rule on the orderly liquidation process, which was the culmination of a series of rulemaking efforts begun earlier this year. The rule implements several provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. Title II establishes an “orderly liquidation authority” (the “OLA”) through which the FDIC can be appointed as receiver and liquidate a covered financial company, such as a bank holding company, whose failure threatens to have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the U.S.

On August 22nd, the Federal Reserve Board proposed a two-year phase-in period for most savings and loan holding companies ("SLHCs") to file Federal Reserve regulatory reports with the Board and an exemption for some SLHCs from initially filing Federal Reserve regulatory reports. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, supervisory and rulemaking authority for SLHCs and their non-depository subsidiaries was transferred from the OTS to the Board. The Board previously sought comment on whether to require SLHCs to submit the same reports as bank holding companies.

On August 24th, the Third Circuit issued an opinion warning lawyers of the hazards posed by over-reliance upon automated, computerized communications between counsel and client. In doing so, it reinstated an order sanctioning a lawyer and her law firm for making false filings with the bankruptcy court. In re: Niles C. Taylor.  

When creditors succeed in obtaining an order for relief in an involuntary Chapter 11 case and the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, who controls the appeals for those orders? According to an April 28, 2011 order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the correct answer is the Chapter 11 trustee.

The judgment in the case of Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (UKSC 2009/0222), which began to be heard by the UK Supreme Court on March 1, 2011,1 was handed down on July 27, 2011. The case concerns the enforceability of so-called “flip clauses,” which provide that payment obligations owed to different creditors, in this case the swap counterparty and the noteholders, “flip” in priority following a counterparty bankruptcy.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications for secured lenders and reorganization plan sales nationwide, the Seventh Circuit’s June 28, 2011 opinion in In re River Road1 marks a jurisdictional split on the contours of credit bidding in bankruptcy. While this decision is squarely at odds with decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits, its holding is in many respects a validation of Judge Ambro’s robust dissent in Philadelphia News,2 and is arguably more aligned with mainstream bankruptcy thinking on credit bidding issues.

The July 6, 2011 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Board of Directors (the “FDIC Board”) meeting marked the changing of the guard from Chairman Sheila Bair to FDIC Vice Chairman Martin Gruenberg. Chairman Bair’s valedictory meeting was not merely ceremonial; it also covered several key developments regarding the timing of a final rule on resolution plans under section 165(d) of Title I and a final rule on the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”) under Title II.

A. RESOLUTION PLANS/ LIVING WILLS

On June 28th, the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the liquidation of Bernard Madoff's broker-dealer ruled that investors in funds that in turn invested with Madoff are not claimants within the meaning of the Securities Investor Protection Act. SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. See also Reuters.

On June 28th, the Second Circuit held that payments made by Enron to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity were not avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the Court answers in the affirmative an issue of first impression among the appellate courts: whether the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 546(e), which shields settlement payments from avoidance in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer's payments to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity.

During her lifetime, Vickie Lynn Marshall, publicly known as Anna Nicole Smith (“Vickie”), was hardly a stranger to the prying eyes of the media. Today, the late Vickie is again the subject of media coverage, this time in the context of a fifteen-year legal saga that has twice reached the United States Supreme Court.