Borders has long collected personal information from customers and promised that such information would not be disclosed without consent. In light of that and Borders' current bankruptcy proceedings, the FTC has sent a letter to the consumer privacy ombudsman overseeing the Borders bankruptcy that seeks the protection of customer personal information.

Two recent opinions from separate federal courts of appeal upheld the dismissal of lawsuits by sophisticated investors that suffered losses in the auction rate securities ("ARS") market against the securities broker-dealers that allegedly fraudulently induced the purchase of the ARS.1

With the future of the New York City Off Track Betting Corp. up in the air, the New York Senate returned to the Capitol Tuesday, Dec. 7, to find itself in the middle of a long-standing battle between tracks and OTB corporations in the state.

Officials at the NYCOTB, which is in Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, vowed to shut down the stateowned betting giant at midnight Dec. 7 if the Senate does not pass a reorganization bill already approved last week by the Assembly.

Building services and maintenance contractor Rok was placed into administration in early November. Administrators from PWC are looking for a buyer for the self styled “nation’s local builder”. The move comes just weeks after the administration of its rival Connaught which led to 1,400 redundancies. Rok’s 3,800 employees will be understandably very concerned as will Rok’s customers/employers, many of whom are in the public sector.

What follows are some of the issues that need to be considered when a contractor, like Rok, goes into administration.

Building services and maintenance contractor Rok was placed into administration this week. Administrators from PWC are looking for a buyer for the self styled “nation’s local builder”. The move comes just weeks after the administration of its rival Connaught which led to 1,400 redundancies. Rok’s 3,800 employees will be understandably very concerned as will Rok’s customers/employers, many of whom are in the public sector.

In the recent judgment of Gray and others v G-T-P Group Limited, the High Court considered whether a charge fell within the scope of the Financial Collateral (No.2) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”) and would not therefore be void against a liquidator, despite not being registered with the Registrar of Companies.

Title II of the Act, designated "Orderly Liquidation Authority" – effective July 21, 2010 – establishes what is intended to be an orderly liquidation process for "financial companies" whose collapse or potential collapse are determined to constitute a risk to the financial system as a whole. Such systemically significant institutions would be liquidated under these new procedures, rather than being treated under existing bankruptcy laws. (The intent of Act is that most-failing financial companies will continue to be administered under existing bankruptcy laws.)

With a growing number of projects facing financial difficulty, the importance of maintaining leverage for securing payment is greater than ever. The project itself remains a prime security target for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier for assuring appropriate attention is given to their claims and that payment will be forthcoming in a timely and unencumbered manner. Some very recent developments in the lien realm emphasize the ongoing attention that is being given to lien statutes and the opportunity they provide for maximizing those considerations of security and leverage.

When people are burdened with debt, they will sometimes resort to underhand tactics to relieve themselves of the consequences. One of the most common strategies is for the debtor to dispose of an asset, which would otherwise be used to pay his or her debts, for less than its market value. In consequence, there is legislation to protect the position of the creditors, who are, unusually, described as ‘victims’ in the legislation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC,1 has ruled that secured creditors do not have a right, as a matter of law, to credit bid their claims when their collateral is sold under a plan of reorganization. The Third Circuit held that secured creditors may be barred from credit bidding where a debtor's reorganization plan provides secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured interest in the assets. The court's ruling follows a similar ruling last year by the U.S.