While bankruptcy law and tort law may not seem related, it is important to know if your client has ever gone through a bankruptcy and, if so, the terms of its plan of reorganization. A recent Eighth Circuit decision confirmed the importance of knowing the ins and outs of a client’s bankruptcy and the terms of the applicable plan.

On December 22, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware inIn re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II LLC ¹ dismissed with prejudice a mezzanine borrower’s bankruptcy case for bad faith under Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the court clarified that the standard in the Third Circuit to evaluate the good faith of a debtor seeking shelter under the umbrella of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is an objective one and does not consider the subjective good faith of a debtor as do courts within the Secon d Circuit.

Generic Legal Advice Memorandum AM 2011-003 (August 18, 2011)

Overview

Summary and implications

This note provides a short summary of receivership and covers some of the most frequently asked questions. The note is intended to be a general overview and specific advice should be taken in individual cases.

The appointment of a receiver is one of the formal enforcement options typically available to lenders who have security over property assets situated in England and Wales. The receiver’s job is to realise those assets and use the proceeds to discharge the debt due to the charge-holder.

This appeal was brought by the insolvency practitioners dealing with the Nortel and Lehman Brothers companies. The Regulator’s Determinations Panel has, in relation to both the Nortel and Lehman Brothers pension schemes, issued warning notices of its intention to issue Financial Support Directions (FSDs) against group companies.

The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation into plans to restructure the Royal Mail.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now weighed in on the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions. In Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., Docket Nos. 09–5122, 09–5142, 2011 WL 2536101 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals faced an issue of first impression—whether Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which shields certain payments from avoidance actions in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer’s payment to redeem its commercial paper made before maturity.

In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).

You will rely on section 355 for nonrecognition, but here you also must rely on section 332 to make the liquidations tax free, without any liquidation-reincorporation problem. It's very clear that you can get the results you want, but not clear why.

LTR 201123022 describes these facts, in simplified form:

On 17 May 2011, the GC annulled a Commission decision requiring recovery of state aid from Polish steel producer Technologie Buczek (TB). The case concerned the actions taken by the Polish authorities in implementing a plan to restructure the steel industry. The GC found that the Commission had been correct to find that TB had benefited from a decision by the Polish authorities not to apply for bankruptcy but to allow the company to continue to operate without repaying its debts.