Beneficiaries of a Ponzi scheme who were subsequently found liable to cheated investors under state securities laws could not discharge this liability under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a stern warning to professional services providers regarding “tail fees,” establishing a presumption of unreasonableness against contract terms requiring fees not attached to tangible, identifiable and material benefits to the debtor’s estate.
On January 25, Judge Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) in a case examining a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction and concerning the effect of event of default provisions on the payment priorities of LBSF as swap counterparty under certain swap agreements and the holders of certain credit-linked synthetic portfolio notes. The payment waterfalls (Priority Provisions) of most CDO transactions give priority to swap counterparties over noteholders.
Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, has returned to the public eye with a vengeance in light of a recent ruling by the influential Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware¹ and controversial pending amendments to Rule 2019 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the “Rules Committee”). The amendments will be the subject of a public hearing held in New York City on February 5, 2010.²
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is proposing to amend its Bankruptcy Rules to permit the trustee for a bankrupt futures commission merchant to continue to operate the business of the commodity broker in the ordinary course for a limited period of time.
Courts are now being asked to examine transactions which were completed during the recent exuberant period. Despite the fact that the transactions in question may have been market standard at the time, because those transactions are being scrutinized during an unprecedented economic crisis, it appears that a disproportionate amount of finger pointing – and economic loss – is being directed at secured creditors. The result is a seeming erosion of secured creditors’ rights for the benefit of unsecured creditors.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced that Residential Credit Solutions was the winning bidder in a pilot sale of receivership assets conducted to test the funding mechanism for the Legacy Loans Program. The FDIC, as a receiver of Franklin Bank, SSB, owns a portfolio of residential mortgage loans with an unpaid principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, which the FDIC will convey to a limited liability company. Residential Credit Solutions will pay $64,215,000 in cash for a 50% stake in the limited liability company using 6-to-1 leverage.
On August 11, the Honorable Allan L. Gropper issued an opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of several property-specific special purpose subsidiaries (SPE Debtors), including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc.
Credit agreements typically provide that any amendment permitting the release of “all or substantially all” of the collateral requires the unanimous consent of the lenders. Many market participants expect that this provision provides protection against the agent and other lenders from consenting to the sale of the collateral and releasing the corresponding liens without the consent of all lenders.
On August 11, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases filed by debtors, including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The movants, including special servicers of the CMBS issued by GGP, based their dismissal motions primarily on a claim that the debtor’s cases were filed in bad faith.