DERIVATIVES/ASSET MANAGEMENT/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY CLIENT PUBLICATION 12 May 2015 Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive – Implications for Repo and Derivative Counterparties The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)1 introduces an EU-wide regime for recovery and resolution planning for, and for resolution action to be taken in respect of, banks and large investment firms (typically the large sell-side institutions) (FIs)2.
Today, the Vermont Supreme Court issues its opinion in the Ambassador in Liquidation case striking down the estate’s previously-published 12/31/13 bar date for final Proofs of Claim. The Ambassador Ins. Co. liquidation has been in process since 1987. After the estate obtained over $300,000,000 in reinsurance and settlement proceeds from its former auditing firm, the estate essentially became “solvent”—paying Priority Four claims at 100 percent (plus interest).
On January 5, 2015, HM Treasury published the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2014 (“BRRO”) and the Banks and Building Societies (Depositor Preference and Priorities) Order 2014 (“BBSO”). The Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Special Bail-in Provision, etc.) Order 2014 and the Banking Act 2009 (Mandatory Compensation Arrangements following Bail-in) Regulations 2014 were published in December 2014.
On December 19, 2014, the UK Insolvency Service reported that two former directors of Connaught Asset Management, Nigel Walter and Michael Anthony Davies, have both been disqualified from controlling or managing a company for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively. The former directors allowed the misuse of up to £106m of investor money by failing to review the progress on loans made with monies borrowed from funds and not ensuring the money was repaid to the fund following loan completion.
The press release is available at:
On October 27, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that even inadvertent mistakes in UCC filings count, and the burden rests on the filing party to detect errors, and not on affected parties who come across them in a search. This ruling upsets a 2013 decision of a bankruptcy court and will ultimately determine the character of a $1.5 billion security interest in the General Motors (GM) bankruptcy.
Background
On Oct. 27, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that even inadvertent mistakes in UCC filings count – the burden rests on the filing party to detect errors, and not on affected parties who come across them in a search. This ruling upsets the 2013 decision of the bankruptcy court and will ultimately determine the character of a $1.5 billion security interest in the General Motors (GM) bankruptcy.
Background
Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC1 that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.
Facing the imminent bankruptcy of the federal Highway Trust Fund (the “HTF”) and the specter of delays and reductions in payments from the HTF to the States, the US Congress last week passed the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014, which extended federal surface transportation programs and funding through May 2015. We summarize below the key elements of the Act.
SHAREHOLDERS ARBITRATION
In a historic USD 50 billion award rendered on July 18,
2014, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted pursuant to the
Energy Charter Treaty held unanimously that the Russian
Federation breached its international obligations under the
Energy Charter Treaty by destroying Yukos Oil Company
and appropriating its assets.
The Tribunal, applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and sitting in The
ague under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ordered the
As bankruptcy practitioners will recall, the Supreme Court held in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2620 (2011) that bankruptcy courts, as non-Article III courts, “lack[] the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim,” even though Congress had classified these types of proceedings as core – and thus authorized federal bankruptcy courts to hear and decide them.