On May 11, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (No. 11-1345), affirming a lower court summary judgment in favor of a surety on a payment bond.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois recently held that an Illinois mortgage is subject to avoidance in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) unless the mortgage contains among other things, (i) the amount of the debt, (ii) the maturity date of the debt, and (iii) the underlying interest rate. Richardson v. The Gifford State Bank (In re Crane), Adv. Pro. No. 11-9067 (Bankr. C.D. Ill.).
In their study published in February's issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics, “Long-Run Impacts of Unions on Firms: New Evidence from Financial Markets, 1961–1999,” Princeton University Professor David Lee and University of California Professor Alexandre Mas estimated that an “average union effect on the equity value of the firm equivalent to $40,000 per unionized worker.” The professors noted that the loss was a combination of a transfer of wealth to workers and inefficiencies caused by the unions.
- Introduction
On Feb. 29, 2012, a Michigan citizens’ group opposed to the State of Michigan’s emergency financial manager law (officially entitled “Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act,” MCL §§ 141.1501 et seq. and referred to herein as the “Act”), filed petitions to place the issue of the Act’s rejection on the state ballot in November.
A proposed bill entitled the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act and recently introduced to the Senate for the State of Michigan would regulate the use and enforceability of certain loan covenants in non-recourse commercial transactions. Presumably, the bill, Senate Bill No. 992 introduced on Feb. 29, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Economic Development, is in reaction to a recent decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals finding a guarantor liable for a deficiency claim notwithstanding the non-recourse nature of the loan. See Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cherryland Mall Ltd.
In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims. The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.
One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle. This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.
On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.
Over the past few months there have been a number of insurance portfolio transfers and a winding up of a general insurer. Various judges of the Federal Court have considered aspects of the Insurance Act (Cth) 1973.
Portfolio transfers
There have been two scheme transfers of insurance portfolios from Australian branches of overseas insurers to Australian subsidiaries. While objections to the transfers were raised, the Federal Court confirmed the schemes.
Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90