In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases, Judge Karen Brown has denied motions to dismiss or convert Omega’s chapter 11 cases or for relief from stay filed by Omega’s Senior Lenders and supported by Omega’s Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee. In the view of Lloyd’s List, a leading industry publication:
In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases (the Show Cause Order), Judge Karen Brown has directed Omega’s Senior Lenders, Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee to show cause whether they should be sanctioned for the conduct described in the Show Cause Order, a copy of which can be found HERE.
After four long years, Australia-based Centro Properties Group (“CNP”) has consummated a global restructuring that combines a debt-for-equity swap with an aggregation of its assets into a new real estate investment trust, Centro Retail Australia (“CRF”). Bracewell & Giuliani was first engaged by Centro’s private placement noteholders in December 2007. As the restructuring progressed Bracewell’s role expanded to becoming lead counsel for CNP’s entire international lending syndicate consisting of more than 90 distressed debt investors, institutional investors and commercial bank
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.
On November 17, 2011 the IRS issued final Treasury Regulations (the “Final Regulations”) that address the tax consequences of a debtor partnership’s issuance of equity in satisfaction of a debt obligation (a “Partnership Equity-for-Debt Exchange”). The Final Regulations provide debtor partnerships, their partners and creditors with welcome clarity regarding the federal income tax consequences of such restructuring.
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.
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.
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the decision of Stern v. Marshall, debatably the most important case on bankruptcy court jurisdiction in the last 30 years. The 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, established limits on the power of bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments on certain state law created causes of action.
The enforcement of triangular setoffs in bankruptcy, where affiliates set off their claims against the debtor, received another setback in a recent decision in the Lehman bankruptcy cases. See In re Lehman Brothers Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP) (SIPA), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that prematurity redemptions of commercial paper made by Enron Corp. shortly before it filed for bankruptcy were protected from avoidance by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s safe harbor for securities transaction settlement payments. In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa., No. 09-5122-bk (2d Cir. June 28, 2011). In so doing, the Second Circuit resolved a clash between the Bankruptcy Code’s interest in avoiding preferential debt repayment and the securities industry’s interest in preserving transaction finality.