1 PGDOCS\6505199.2 2015 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments Michael P. Carey Bryan Cave LLP Fourteenth Floor 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 572-6600 March 22, 2016 This paper is not intended as legal advice for any specific person or circumstance, but rather a general treatment of the topics discussed. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author only and not Bryan Cave LLP. The author would like to thank Tom Richey for his continued support, advice and assistance with this paper.
On April 1, a bevy of dollar amounts set forth in the Bankruptcy Code will change. Some of these are quite important to substantive relief, and others are quite important to making sure you don’t look bad in front of the client or your favorite (least favorite?) judge. We have Section 104 of the Bankruptcy Code to thank for this malpractice-inducing enterprise, which we enjoy every three years. See 11 U.S.C. § 104 (a) (“On April 1, 1998, and at each 3-year interval ending on April 1 thereafter, each dollar amount in effect under sections . . . shall be adjusted . . . .”).
Editor’s Note: Here at The Bankruptcy Cave, we love insolvency stuff; we eat it for breakfast and dream about it at night. (We are not kidding.) Sometimes that includes credit-related litigation, and so we keep our pre-trial, trial, and appellate skills honed. To that end, here is a very helpful cheat sheet we prepared and which we bring with us to every deposition, just in case. (Your author Leah even got to enjoy a no-show deposition in Chicago last year; she created a perfect record using the below.)
The financial pressure on the oil and gas industry is well known. Dozens of oil and gas companies have defaulted on credit facilities or filed bankruptcy recently and industry observers expect many more to follow.
Including an unsecured creditor in an agreed payments waterfall does not by itself confer on that unsecured creditor the benefit of a mortgagee’s usual duties on enforcement of security, or a direct claim against the sale proceeds.
You may recall the holding and analysis of ASARCO [1]/ from Jay’s previous post, here.
On February 17, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved a proposal for recordkeeping requirements for FDIC-insured institutions with a large number of deposit accounts to facilitate rapid payment of insured deposits to customers if those institutions were to fail. The proposed rule would apply to insured depository institutions with more than 2 million deposit accounts. Under the proposal, these institutions would generally be required to maintain complete and accurate data on each depositor.
On January 21, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced that it was seeking comment on a revised proposed rule that would amend the way small banks are assessed for deposit insurance. The proposed rule would affect banks with less than $10 billion in assets that have been insured by the FDIC for at least five years.
A federal appeals court in Illinois held that Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Bank of New York (collectively, “BNYM”) were on “inquiry notice” that Sentinel Management Group, Inc. improperly used customer funds as collateral for a loan prior to the firm’s collapse in August 2007. (Sentinel was an investment management firm registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a futures commission merchant that claimed it specialized in short-term cash management for hedge funds, individuals, financial institutions and other FCMs.
Over the summer, four appellate court decisions addressed the doctrine of equitable mootness: In re Tribune Media Co., 799 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2015); In re One2One Commc’ns, LLC, No. 13-3410, 2015 WL 4430302 (3d Cir.