The FDIC voted to extend the safe harbor provided under 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 until September 30, 2010, from the FDIC’s ability, as conservator or receiver, to recover assets securitized or participated out by an insured depository institution. When the safe harbor was initially adopted in 2000, the FDIC provided important protections for securitizations and participations by confirming that, in the event of a bank failure, the FDIC would not try to reclaim loans transferred into such transactions so long as an accounting sale had occurred.

Making a will is regarded by most individuals as a necessary irritant ranking in popularity somewhere below a visit to the dentist or doctor. Following the unprecedented instability in the global financial markets since 2007, “systemic” risk (posed by the potential failure of large or complex cross-border financial institutions) was identified by regulators and legislators as one of the key areas requiring better supervision, in order to prevent a similar crisis in the future.

Lenders are often counseled about fraudulent conveyance risks when they engage in financing transactions. It is usual, customary and the norm for steps to be taken to attempt to reduce such risks, including obtaining solvency and fairness opinions and using so-called savings clauses in loan documents. These undertakings and features notwithstanding, when a borrower or guarantor files a chapter 11 petition, often fraudulent conveyance claims are threatened, used as leverage, and settled within the context of a plan of reorganization.

A recent decision in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re Tousa,[1] has received widespread attention for its near wholesale rejection of insolvency “savings clauses,” and the resulting order requiring lenders to disgorge hundreds of millions of dollars. The decision raises numerous practical problems for participants in the secondary loan and derivatives markets, and more generally for commercial lenders and borrowers.

Background

In August 2009, an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme of arrangement to restructure the debt of IMO Car Wash Group, a highly leveraged UK based car wash company. This decision follows the similar use of schemes of arrangements in other restructurings. For example earlier this year an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme in the debt restructuring of McCarthy & Stone. In both of these restructurings, the subordinated creditors were left with no value for their debt claims.

In August 2009, an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme of arrangement to restructure the debt of IMO Car Wash Group, a highly leveraged UK based car wash company. This decision follows the similar use of schemes of arrangements in other restructurings. For example earlier this year an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme in the debt restructuring of McCarthy & Stone. In both of these restructurings, the subordinated creditors were left with no value for their debt claims.

As we have recently noted, the federal banking agencies have worked together to expand the pool of investors eligible to bid to acquire failing depository institutions. See our 21st Century Money, Banking & Commerce Alert entitled “OCC Approves Shelf Charter for National Banks to Encourage New Investment” (Nov. 25, 2008). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has recently modified the receivership process in less obvious ways that also may have important ramifications for investors. 

On July 28, 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) published for comment a proposed rule that would require certain troubled depository institutions to maintain records of their qualified financial contracts (“QFCs”) in order to provide the FDIC with basic information when the agency is appointed as receiver. 73 Fed. Reg. 43635. Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the FDIC by September 26, 2008.

In the case of Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,¹ the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the payment of stamp taxes or similar taxes on transfers of property of a Chapter 11 debtor’s estate, contained in section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,² does not apply to transfers of property made before a Chapter 11 plan is confirmed.

The hurdles for KERP programs have been raised too high, causing debtors to lose critical personnel to the detriment of post-petition operations, say Frost Brown Todd’s Ronald Gold and Doug Lutz in our series of chats with high-profile bankruptcy lawyers.

Q. What’s the most challenging bankruptcy you’ve worked on, and why?