In a September 7, 2010 article, the Wall Street Journal reported an uptick in bankruptcy claim activity by traders and the desire of the traders to not comply with certain bankruptcy disclosure requirements that applied to “committees.” The Journal highlighted one case where Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon of the Delaware District Court held the following exchange with a lawyer for certain bondholders: “‘Are you a Committee?’ The lawyer began to answer, ‘Well, actually Your Honor, we are a group of - -’.
On September 7, 2011, the FDIC announced the launch of a new initiative aimed at encouraging small investors and asset managers to partner with larger investors to participate in the FDIC’s structured transaction sales of assets from failed institutions.
Pursuant to Section 113 of Dodd- Frank aimed at avoiding a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, the Federal Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) issued a proposed rule establishing a three-stage analysis for identifying non bank systemically important financial institutions.
The Federal Reserve announced the approval of a final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank resolution plan requirement set forth in Section 165(d) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule requires bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more and nonbank financial firms designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to annually submit resolution plans to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.
A New York State Administrative Law Judge has denied an application for costs and fees filed by a petitioner who had succeeded in substantially reducing the asserted tax liability through settlement. Matter of Frank M. Grillo, DTA No. 823237 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., Nov. 3, 2011). The decision turned on whether the position of the Department of Taxation and Finance was substantially justified, and that, in turn, depended upon whether the Department had used the correct address when it sent the Notice of Determination to the petitioner.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued a decision that will significantly limit the chances of success for many claims that the trustee of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (“BLMIS”) estate, Irving Picard, has brought against former investors in BLMIS to recover funds for the estate. In Picard v. Katz, 11 Civ. 3605 (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a decision that dismissed most of the causes of action brought against a group of investors under the U.S.
An article by the National Underwriter Company discusses a recent Moody’s report that asbestos claims are again on the rise after years of declining or flat claims.1 This has led several insurers to increase their asbestos reserves and Moody’s views this trend as a warning flag for the property and casualty insurance industry as a whole.
Last month, District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court ruling which held that the environmental cleanup obligations of debtor Mark IV Industries, Inc. were not discharged in bankruptcy.2 Given the current legal landscape, Mark IV may make the likelihood of discharging environmental claims even more difficult, potentially undermining chapter 11 as an optimal alternative for companies saddled with environmental liabilities.
On August 9, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a non-insider's debt claim can be recharacterized as equity in Grossman v. Lothian Oil Inc. (In re Lothian Oil, Inc.).2 The Fifth Circuit, in reversing the district court, held that: (i) there is no per se rule limiting to insiders the recharacterization of debt claims as equity and (ii) non-insider debt claims may be recharacterized as equity under section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
In the recent case of Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (In re Whittle Development, Inc.), No. 10-37084, 2011 WL 3268398 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2011), a bankruptcy court was asked whether a preference action could be sustained against a creditor who purchased real property in a properly conducted state law foreclosure sale. Recognizing a split of authority and some contrary principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its prior decision, BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994), the bankruptcy court found that a preference claim could be asserted.