On September 14, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's finding that a failed bank's parent did not make a capital maintenance commitment to the bank. After the parent filed for bankruptcy, the FDIC was appointed receiver for the bank. The FDIC then sought payment from the parent under the statute requiring a party seeking reorganization to fulfill commitments to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.
On August 20th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a trial court's ruling finding that judgments against Ponzi scheme "net gainers" were non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The debtors were early investors in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme and received more money than they invested. When the Ponzi scheme was uncovered, the state State of Oklahoma sued the debtors for unjust enrichment but not for any securities violations. After the State obtained a judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, the debtors declared bankruptcy.
The Bankruptcy Code provides a number of “safe harbors” for forward contracts and other derivatives. These provisions exempt derivatives from a number of Bankruptcy Code provisions, including portions of the automatic stay,1 restrictions on terminating executory contracts,2 and the method for calculating rejection damages.3 The safe harbor provisions also protect counterparties to certain types of contracts from the avoidance actions created under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the preference and fraudulent transfer statutes.4
On July 16th, the National Futures Association ("NFA") announced it has requested that the Special Committee for the Protection of Customer Funds, consisting of the public representatives on NFA's Board of Directors, retain the services of a national law firm to conduct a careful internal review of NFA's audit practices and procedures, and the execution of those procedures in the specific instance of Peregrine Financial Group, to assure that the right procedures are in place and that they are being properly followed.
- Introduction
Recent cases interpreting Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) suggest that there are different standards for recognizing whether domestic entities and foreign entities have filed insolvency proceedings in the proper venue.
The Bankruptcy Abuse, Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was signed into law in the United States on April 20, 2005 and went into effect, for the most part, on October 17, 2005, created a new chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) – Chapter 15. Chapter 15 replaces and modifies the earlier Bankruptcy Code sections that dealt with multi-national insolvency proceedings.
On July 9, 2012, the Seventh Circuit decided in Sunbeam1 that the rejection of a trademark license by a bankrupt trademark licensor does not deprive the trademark licensee of its right to continue to use the trademark, and disagreed with the 1985 Fourth Circuit decision in Lubrizol2 that held to the contrary.3 In reaction to the Lubrizol decision, which held that the rejection of a license by a bankrupt licensor of intellectual property terminated the rights of the licensee, Congress enacted Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy
On March 15, 2012, the American Bar Association’s Electronic Discovery (ESI) in Bankruptcy Working Group (the “Working Group”) published an interim report addressing certain principles and suggested best practices for electronic discovery in bankruptcy cases (the “Interim Report”). The Working Group was formed to study and prepare guidelines or a “best practices” report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve ESI in bankruptcy cases.
On June 22nd, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and the Treasury Department issued a final rule on the calculation of the maximum obligation limitation ("MOL"), as specified in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"). The MOL limits the aggregate amount of outstanding obligations that the FDIC may issue or incur in connection with the orderly liquidation of a covered financial company. The new rule is effective July 23, 2012.
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.