The United States bankruptcy judge overseeing the liquidation of MF Global Inc., approved the trustee’s proposal to pay  all unsecured general creditors $461 million. Once paid, this distribution would result in total distributions to unsecured general creditors of 72 percent of their approved claims.

The New York State Attorney General settled a lawsuit against Ernst & Young related to its involvement in the financial statement preparation of Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. The NY AG had alleged that the auditing firm had countenanced Lehman’s inclusion of certain repurchase transactions as sales and not as financings, which permitted the firm to remove “tens of billions of dollars” of securities from its balance sheet. According to the NY AG, the repo transactions—known as “Repo 105”—“served no legitimate purpose.

The trustee for the liquidation of MF Global Inc. is seeking permission from the bankruptcy judge overseeing the firm’s dissolution to make a distribution of US $461 million to unsecured general creditors. If approved, this distribution would result in total distributions to unsecured general creditors of 72 percent of their approved claims. To date, the trustee has distributed 100 percent of approved claims of MF Global’s customers (totaling US $6.7 billion), and 100 percent of approved secured, priority and administrative claims.

On January 14, 2015, Target Corporation ("Target US") announced the exit of substantially all of its Canadian operations less than two years after opening its first Canadian stores in a strategic push to operate at least one store in every province of Canada. The following day, on January 15, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Toronto (the "Court") granted Target Canada Co.

Introduction

In two recent decisions, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted an interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “TIA”) that may complicate future exchange offers and, in some cases, force bond restructurings that might otherwise have been completed out-of-court to be effectuated through a bankruptcy filing.1  In Marblegate Asset Management v.

In another major development in a case that continues to redefine the standard procedures in asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings, on January 13, 2015, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC announced that it had reached an agreement with the representative for future asbestos claimants that would settle all present and future asbestos claims for $358 million. The current net present value of the settlement is reportedly $205 million – considerably higher than the bankruptcy court’s liability estimate of $125 million, but well below the $1.3 billion plaintiffs had been seeking.

In In re BGI, Inc. f/k/a/ Borders Group, Inc.,1 the Second Circuit recently held that the doctrine of equitable mootness — a doctrine that permits appellate courts to refrain from hearing bankruptcy appeals relating to plan confirmation when it would be “inequitable” to do so – applies in liquidations under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. This ruling extends the doctrine from Chapter 11 reorganizations, in which it has traditionally been applied in the Second Circuit, to liquidations.

Six trade associations representing non-dealer swap market participants sent a letter to the Financial Stability Board on November 4, urging the FSB to reconsider its initiative to promote contractual waivers of default rights under industry-standard derivative master agreements. The letter, signed by the Managed Funds Association, the Alternative Investment Management Association Limited, the American Council of Life Insurers, the Association of Institutional Investors, the Commodity Customer Coalition and the Commodity Markets Council, responds to comments made by the FSB in the cons

On September 29, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed an earlier decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp.1 holding that a private equity sponsor was not liable for its portfolio company’s alleged violations of the WARN Act. The District Court ruling is good news for private equity funds and other investors with portfolio companies in distress.