On January 18, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) approved an interim final rule (“Interim Rule”), with request for comments, to implement certain provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).

I. Introduction Readers may be familiar with the use in the UK of Schemes of Arrangement to achieve closure of insurance and reinsurance business.

I. Introduction

When entering into a reinsurance agreement, a ceding company and a reinsurer may also enter into a related reinsurance trust agreement  

In an October 13, 2009 decision involving bankrupt homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) avoided as fraudulent transfers certain liens given and debt obligations incurred by several of TOUSA’s subsidiaries to a syndicate of lenders who provided $500 million of new loans to TOUSA. In addition, the Court ordered those lenders, and others that received the proceeds of the new loans, to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to the bankrupt estates of these subsidiaries.

The recent Scottish Court Opinion on Scottish Lion’s proposed solvent scheme of arrangement,1 in which it was held that to sanction a solvent scheme there must be a “problem requiring a solution” and, in effect, unanimous creditor approval, was followed by a short hearing on Wednesday 14th October in which Lord Glennie said that he would dismiss the petition for the scheme.

On September 15, 2009, in an order read from the bench, the Honorable James M. Peck, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork, and the presiding judge in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and other associated Lehman Brothers United States entities, held a key provision of the standard ISDA Master Agreement unenforceable in a bankruptcy context.

On August 11, 2009, in a closely monitored dispute in the bankruptcy proceeding of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York rejected motions filed by several mortgage lenders to dismiss the bankruptcy filings of certain special purpose entity subsidiaries (SPEs) of GGP. In re General Growth Properties, Inc., et al., No. 09-11977, slip op. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2009).

Pending motions in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in General Growth Properties’ (GGP) bankruptcy case (Case No. 09-11977) are expected to shed new light on how courts may treat real estate special-purpose entities in bankruptcy and may also have implications for the efficacy of bankruptcy-remote SPE structures used in asset-backed securitization transactions.

A recent court decision, Thermal Supply, Inc. v. Big Sky Beef,LLC, 195 P.3d 1227 (Mont. 2008) underscores the importance of filing Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) continuation statements to prevent the lapse of financing statements even during bankruptcy or litigation.