On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a debtor could not confirm a plan over a secured creditor’s objection if the plan provided for the sale of the secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens, but did not provide the secured creditor with the option of credit-bidding at the sale. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 3944 (U.S. May 29, 2012). Such a plan, the Supreme Court held, does not meet the statutory requirements for “fair and equitable” treatment of an objecting secured class in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A).

In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu

In the recent matter Wilmington Trust Natl. Assn. v. Vitro Automotriz, Index No. 652303/11 (N.Y. Sup. Dec. 5, 2011), Justice Bernard J. Fried of the Commercial Division addressed the obligations of guarantors of indentured notes. Regardless that the issuer of the notes had declared bankruptcy in Mexico, the guarantors, none of whom were co-debtors, were not relieved of their obligations under the notes.

In Wells Fargo Bank Northwest v. US Airways, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 52188(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Dec. 1, 2011), Justice Bernard J. Fried held that a liquidated damages provision requiring payment of a holdover fee equal to twice the monthly rent was reasonable and did not function as a penalty under New York contract law. The case arose from three aircraft sale and leaseback transactions, pursuant to which Defendant US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), sold to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Northwest (“Wells Fargo”), and Wells Fargo leased back to US Airways, three Boeing 737 aircraft.

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background

Responsive to issues faced with difficulty in obtaining financing by businesses (particularly small- to medium-size enterprises) due to the global financial crisis, State Administration of Industry and Commence officially released Administrative Measures for Corporate Debt-for-Equity Swap Registration (the “Measures”) recently, which formalizes regulation of debt-for-equity swap on the national level. The Measures will be put into implementation on January 1, 2012.

Where does liability under a Pensions Regulator Contribution Notice rank in an Employer's insolvency?

In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

Background

The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing to consider an amendment to the venue provisions of the Bankruptcy Code proposed by the Committee’s Chairman that would require corporations to file voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the district where they maintain their principal place of business or have their principal assets. Under the current bankruptcy venue provisions of the U.S. Code, a debtor corporation can file its bankruptcy case in the state where it is incorporated, where it has its principal assets, or where it is headquartered.