On April 7th, a federal bankruptcy court sanctioned Lender Processing Services, Inc., a home foreclosure service provider against whom the Federal Reserve Board and OCC have initiated enforcement action. The opinion explains LPS's business model and that model's failings, and cites case law documenting LPS's historic shortcomings. It reminds litigants that proving a default is the lender's, not counsel's, responsibility. In re Ron Wilson, Sr.  

On April 12th, a federal district court addressed the in pari delicto defense, including the sole actor exception to the adverse interest exception. In the instant case, a litigation trust created in bankruptcy court to pursue the debtor's claims sued Credit Suisse for allegedly assisting the debtor's founders' looting of the debtor's subsidiaries. Credit Suisse sought summary judgment, asserting the in pari delicto defense. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the founders so dominated the subsidiaries that the subsidiaries lacked a separate existence.

Introduction

Prior to 25 March 2011, there was no judicial decision in Ireland on whether the holder of a floating charge could validly improve its position in the order of priority of payments, vis-à-vis preferential creditors, in circumstances where its floating charge crystallises (i.e. converts into a fixed charge) prior to commencement of the winding up of a company.

InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.

The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.

The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:

In Re: Michael McLoughlin Pharmacy Ltd. The examiner sought the High Court’s approval for a scheme of arrangement which limited his liability for negligence. The secured creditor objected as a matter of principle because such limitations of liability had become commonplace in schemes. The secured creditor made it clear that there was no suggestion of any negligence by the examiner in the particular case.

The court considered:

InDellway and Ors. v National Asset Management Agency & Ors., a number of companies and Paddy McKillen appealed a decision of the High Court in relation to the purported acquisition of €2∙1 billion in loans to the appellant companies by NAMA.

The appeal was brought on five grounds:

On March 15th, the FDIC published for comment a proposed rule that would establish the priority of payments to creditors when the FDIC acts as liquidator for a failed non-bank financial institution. The proposal also would establish the procedures for filing a claim with the receiver and clarifies the receiver's clawback authority. Comments should be submitted within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is expected during the week of March 21.

FDIC Proposes Rules for the Recoupment of Compensation from Executives of Failed Financial Institutions I hope this does not apply to any of you, but on Tuesday, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to clarify application of the orderly liquidation authority contained in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, "Orderly Liquidation Authority" (OLA).

On February 22nd, the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the liquidation of Lehman Brothers' broker-dealer business denied motions seeking to modify the order approving the sale of the business to Barclays Capital. The Court noted the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the sale, the affirmance of that sale order, and movants' failure to challenge the order for one year. The court held that even if the evidence presented here were known in 2008, the result would have been the same, i.e., the sale would have been approved.