On June 28th, the Second Circuit held that payments made by Enron to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity were not avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the Court answers in the affirmative an issue of first impression among the appellate courts: whether the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 546(e), which shields settlement payments from avoidance in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer's payments to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court’s ruling that, where subordination agreements lacked explicit provisions addressing the payment of post-petition interest on senior unsecured debt, the agreements were ambiguous, and an inquiry into the parties’ intent was required. After probing the facts and analyzing New York law, the bankruptcy court determined that the contracting parties did not intend to subordinate the junior unsecured debt to post-petition interest on the senior debt.
Background
On June 23rd, the First Circuit addressed the priority of claims asserted by senior noteholders and junior noteholders of debt issued by an insolvent bank. It affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that the parties did not intend for the senior noteholders to receive post-petition interest payments prior to the junior noteholders receiving a distribution. In re: Bank of New England Corporation, Debtor.
On June 7th, Bloomberg reported that the FDIC, as receiver for Downey Savings & Loan Association, has sued Amerifund Financial Inc., a mortgage broker. The FDIC alleges that Amerifund altered or misstated borrowers' financial information while processing mortgage applications for Downey. Lawsuit.
On June 7th, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment dismissing Chapter 13 debtors' claims against Wells Fargo, which holds debtors' mortgages. Debtors alleged that Wells Fargo violated the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions by recording in its internal records the fees it incurred to file its proof of claim. The Eleventh Circuit held that Wells Fargo did not violate the automatic stay because it had not collected or attempt to collect those fees. Similarly, a claim based on Wells Fargo's failure to disclose the fees was not yet ripe for action.
On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Indalex Limited, ordering that the reserved sale proceeds of a going-concern sale involving the Canadian Indalex entities (“Indalex Canada”), held by the court-appointed monitor, FTI Consulting Inc.
On April 21st, the Federal Reserve Board requested comment on two bankruptcy-related studies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve Board to study the resolution of financial companies under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the Federal Reserve Board to study international coordination of the resolution of systemically important financial companies under the Bankruptcy Code and applicable foreign law.
On April 18th, the FDIC released a report examining how it could have structured an orderly resolution of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. under the orderly liquidation authority of the Dodd-Frank Act had that law been in effect at the time.
The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 on April 7, 2011. The decision comes as a surprise to many pension and insolvency professionals, lenders and pension plan sponsors. The court, essentially, directed that monies held in reserve by the monitor appointed under the federal Companies Creditors Arrangement Act should be used to pay off pension fund deficits in preference to secured creditors.
Background
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.