On December 23rd, the Third Circuit addressed whether the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code prevents a home mortgage lender from accounting for the pre-petition escrow shortage in its post-petition calculation of future monthly escrow payments. The Court concluded that when the terms of the loan allow the lender to escrow taxes and insurance payments, the lender has a pre-petition claim. In re Francisco Rodriguez.
On November 10 we posted to Basis Points a blog concerning a Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision (In re Universal Building Products) that fired a warning shot across the bows of professionals who solicit Creditors’ Committee proxies from non-clients of their firms (here is the blog).
On December 1st, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the approval of a receiver's plan to distribute the assets of a failed investment manager, finding that where a receivership trust lacks sufficient assets to fully repay investors and the investors' funds are commingled, a pro rata distribution plan is appropriate, and that the trial court properly rejected the objectors' arguments that their redemption requests made them creditors and not equity holders. SEC v.
On December 3rd, the CFTC published for public comment proposed requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants with respect to the treatment of collateral posted by their counterparties to margin, guarantee, or secure uncleared swaps. The proposal also would ensure that, for purposes of subchapter IV of chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, securities held in a portfolio margining account that is a futures account constitute "customer property" and owners of such account constitute "customers." Comments should be submitted on or before February 1, 2011.
Our clients must be sick to death about hearing us comment on the Australian Sons of Gwalia saga (which we have been doing for more than three years) but finally there is good news to report. The short version of the saga is thatSons of Gwalia was a decision by Australia's highest court that shareholder damages claims should be treated as pari passu unsecured claims in an Australian insolvency proceeding.
There have been a number of stories about how Ambac filed for Chapter 11 on November 8. However, there’s Ambac and then there’s Ambac and then there’s Ambac. If that all sounds the same to you, we are actually referring to three different Ambacs and the purpose of this blog is to help clear up the market confusion. First there is the Ambac that filed for Chapter 11 on November 8, which is Ambac Financial Group Inc. (AFG). This must mean that the bankruptcy trigger events in the contracts of all of Ambac’s insured counterparties were triggered by the bankruptcy filing, right?
On November 10th, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association announced that its Americas Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee resolved that a bankruptcy credit event has occurred in respect of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. An auction will be held for Ambac Financial Group for which ISDA will publish the auction terms. ISDA Press Release.
Last Thursday, a Delaware Bankruptcy Court disqualified two law firms from representing an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors based on their conduct in soliciting proxies from creditors who were not existing firm clients. In re Universal Building Products, No. 10-12453 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 4, 2010), involved an extreme fact pattern but it may nonetheless have a substantial effect not only on the selection of professionals for future Committees but also on the appointment of creditors to Committees, at least in Delaware.
On November 1st, the Treasury Department provided an update regarding the federal government's involvement with AIG. AIG will use the proceeds from its sale of one unit and the IPO from a second to repay the loan extended to AIG by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and to repurchase a substantial amount of the FRBNY's preferred interests in certain AIG subsidiaries. AIG will then draw up to $22 billion in remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program funds from the Treasury Department to restructure its governmental obligations.
Most polls, political pundits, and crystal balls are predicting a larger crowd on the Republican side of the aisle after the midterm elections, potentially giving them a majority in the House and tightening the margin in the Senate. The natural question that follows is what will happen to Dodd-Frank if the composition of Congress changes significantly? Is it possible that with a Republican majority the House may seek to repeal one of the most controversial pieces of legislation enacted by the Obama administration?