About two years ago, decisions were issued by different circuit court of appeals that addressed the fundamental issue of whether a plan proponent can deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid on collateral of the secured creditor when the sale is made pursuant to a plan of reorganization. Both circuit courts, including the Third Circuit in the much heralded Philadelphia Newspapers LLC decision, found that a debtor could deny a secured creditor that opportunity. See In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d 298 (3rd Cir.

News reports in 2011 suggested that municipal bankruptcy filings were frequent and substantial. Each of Central Falls, Rhode Island, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Jefferson County, Alabama filed for bankruptcy protection in the second half of 2011. Even a state-owned local monopoly on (legal) gambling was not safe from financial turmoil in 2011: Suffolk County’s Off-Track Betting Corporation filed for bankruptcy on March 18. Indeed, 2011 seemed to be the year of chapter 9, which governs municipal bankruptcy filings.

Active participants in the derivatives market rely on the Bankruptcy Code safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) in pricing their securities. That provision restricts a debtor’s power to recover payments made in connection with certain securities transactions that might otherwise be avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. Two high profile cases decided in 2011 addressed challenges to the application of section 546(e). The more widely reported decision (at least outside the bankruptcy arena) was in connection with the Madoff insolvency case. See Picard v.

In a September 7, 2010 article, the Wall Street Journal reported an uptick in bankruptcy claim activity by traders and the desire of the traders to not comply with certain bankruptcy disclosure requirements that applied to “committees.” The Journal highlighted one case where Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon of the Delaware District Court held the following exchange with a lawyer for certain bondholders: “‘Are you a Committee?’ The lawyer began to answer, ‘Well, actually Your Honor, we are a group of - -’.

Amendments to the rules of deductibility of interest expenses

Further restrictions to deductibility of interest expenses incurred in relation to a share purchase¹

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amendments to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Amended Rule 2019) and submitted the proposed amendment to Congress for approval. Amended Rule 2019 was approved by Congress and became effective on December 1, 2011. The rule governs certain disclosure requirements for groups consisting of multiple creditors or equity security holders acting in concert in Chapter 9 or Chapter 11 cases.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued a decision that will significantly limit the chances of success for many claims that the trustee of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (“BLMIS”) estate, Irving Picard, has brought against former investors in BLMIS to recover funds for the estate. In Picard v. Katz, 11 Civ. 3605 (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a decision that dismissed most of the causes of action brought against a group of investors under the U.S.

The Court of Appeal in England has unanimously upheld a first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it superpriority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decision has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.

Background

German Parliament passes “Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies“ (Gesetz zur weiteren Erleichterung der Sanierung von Unternehmen, ESUG)