Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 8, 2011 issued an opinion on a motion of the Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) trustee (“Trustee”) to confirm his determination that certain claims relating to settled on delivery-versus-payment “to be announced” (“TBA”) contracts do not qualify as customer claims against the LBI estate and therefore are not entitled to Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) coverage.

On 31 October 2011, MF Global UK Limited, an insolvent investment broker, became the first investment firm to enter the special administration regime (the “SAR”) created by the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/245).

The SAR was adopted in February 2011 following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and has the advantage over ordinary corporate administration in that it sets special objectives for the administrator and this is the first time the SAR has been used. The SAR sets three objectives for a special administrator:

The respected Financial Markets Law Committee sponsored by the Bank of England has published a paper, dated October 2011, containing an analysis of legal uncertainty in the FSA’s Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) and arising from judicial decisions relating to the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).

In a case of first impression, In re Qimonda AG, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Bankruptcy Court”) found that the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code are available to licensees of U.S. patents in a chapter 15 case even when these protections are not available under the foreign law applicable to the foreign debtor.

In this DechertOnPoint, we summarise HM Treasury’s work to establish effective resolution arrangements for investment banks and firms, which resulted in the introduction of a special administration regime (“SAR”) earlier this year.

Introduction

In a significant decision that reinforced the U.S. Supreme Court’s prior plurality decision in Marathon, the Court determined that while bankruptcy courts have the statutory authority to hear state-law compulsory counterclaims to a creditor’s proof of claim under section 157(b)(2)(C) of Title 28, Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires such proceedings to be heard by Article III judges where they would not be resolved as part of the claims allowance process.

Introduction

There are essentially three types of insolvency proceeding: liquidation, receivership and administration. Liquidators realise and distribute a company’s assets before dissolving the company. Receivers usually realise certain secured assets to repay certain debts, before appointing a liquidator. However, an administrator’s first objective is to rescue the company as a going concern. It is only if this is not practicable that the administrator can realise and distribute a company’s assets.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) on February 7, 2011 issued an opinion rejecting the often used gifting doctrine in the context of a plan of reorganization on the one hand, while affirming vote designation for claims not purchased in good faith on the other.In re DBSD N. Am., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 350480 (2d Cir. Feb. 7, 2011).