A Western District of New York bankruptcy court has held that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to leveraged buy-outs of privately held securities. See Cyganowski v. Lapides (In re Batavia Nursing Home, LLC), No. 12-1145 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013).
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.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in (Re) Indalex has changed the landscape for both lenders and borrowers in Canada who sponsor registered defined benefit pension plans. For lenders, carefully drafted loan documentation and effective planning can enhance the protection of a secured lender’s position in the face of the broadened scope of a deemed trust applicable to a borrower’s defined benefit pension obligations.
In (Re) Indalex, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) affirmed the super-priority of the security granted to a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lender, over a deemed trust created under provincial pension legislation, in the context of a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding. The SCC’s analysis leaves open further issues.
The Upstream C Reorganization
In the late 20th century, the IRS made a combination of unrelated decisions resulting in a proliferation of upstream C reorganizations. First was the repeal of the Bausch & Lomb rule, meaning that the equity held by a parent corporation in its subsidiary could count as continuity of interest, thus allowing the liquidation of a subsidiary to be treated as an upstream C reorganization. Second, the invention of the check-the-box regulations made subsidiary liquidations (and hence upstream reorganizations) so much easier.