On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding1 holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.
When a court awards a judgment to a party, it might seem as though the process of recovery has concluded. The successful party expects to collect and return to business. Yet, in some cases, the collection of the award begins another dispute, which companies should anticipate. Because many judgment awards include a total for damages plus an amount for interest set at a certain percentage to accrue per annum from the payment due date, an additional dispute may arise over the collection of interest owed.
In In re East End Development, LLC, 2013 WL 1820182 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Apr.
Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.
There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.
The recent decision of Modcol Pty Ltd v National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd [1] addressed whether leave should be granted to a subcontractor to allow it to commence proceedings against a contractor in administration in respect of the subcontractor's rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act).
The Ninth Circuit has joined the majority of Circuit Courts in holding that bankruptcy courts have the authority to recharacterize alleged debts as equity. See Official Comm. of Unsecured Creds. v. Hancock Park Capital II, L.P. (In re Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc.), No. 11-56677, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 1800000 (9th Cir. April 30, 2013). In doing so, the appellate court has explicitly reversed the contrary precedent of In re Pacific Express, Inc., 69 B.R. 112, 115 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1986).
In re Big M, Inc., No. 13-10233 (DHS), 2013 WL 1681489 (Bankr. D.N.J. April 17, 2013). In Big M, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that the debtor’s privilege did not pass to the creditors’ committee, even though the creditors’ committee obtained authority to investigate certain of the debtor’s causes of action, because the committee was acting as a fiduciary to creditors as opposed to the debtor’s estate.
The NSW Government has accepted some of the key recommendations of the Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry in Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, including the introduction of bonds. We know that the Government will:
Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc1 case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Justice Jacobson's unwillingness to depart from the interests of the majority in relation to Nine Entertainment should give parties confidence that Schemes remain an effective way to effect debt for equity swaps or similar transactions.