For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).
On November 17, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and "make-whole" redemption provisions, holding that Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, "EFIH") were unable to avoid paying lenders approximately $800 million in expected interest by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy.
Background
The infamous history of MF Global is closer to ending after the administrator for the bankrupt holding company filed a proposed notice of settlement that, if approved, would provide a payment of US $132 million to resolve most outstanding litigation against the company and individual former officers by certain customers and other creditors. The funds would come from insurance proceeds from policies maintained on behalf of the former officers of MF Global that were named as defendants in the litigation, including John Corizine, former chief executive officer.
The bankruptcy court overseeing the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases rejected efforts by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) to recover roughly $1 billion in payments made to numerous noteholder defendants from the liquidation of collateral originally pledged to secure both obligations under notes issued by special purpose entities and credit default swap (CDS) obligations to LBSF, holding that the termination of the swap and liquidation and distribution of the collateral were protected by the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor.
Law360, New York (June 30, 2016, 1:20 PM ET) -- After four hearings and one markup at the House Committee on Natural Resources, and countless hours of public and behind-the-scenes debate by the legislators, the House of Representatives passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) on June 9, 2016. Then, on June 29, 2016, the Senate agreed to the House bill, sending the bill to the president for his expected signature.
In a June 10 letter to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, the IRS said it plans to notify individuals whose assets were seized because of suspected financial structuring abuses as far back as October 2009 that they may be able to recover their assets from the govern
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposed a rule that would require US global systemically important banking institutions to amend their contracts for certain common financial transactions to preclude the immediate termination of such contracts if a firm enters bankruptcy or a resolution process. Relevant contracts – termed “qualified financial contracts” – that would have to be amended include those used for derivatives, securities lending and short time financing such as repurchase agreements.
Law360, New York (May 5, 2016, 12:02 PM ET) -- A core principle of bankruptcy tax litigation holds that “bankruptcy courts have universally recognized their jurisdiction to consider tax issues brought by the debtor, limited only by their discretion to abstain.” IRS v. Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 329-330 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hunt, 95 B.R. 442, 445 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1989). The Second Circuit recently departed from that generally accepted principle in United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2014).