This discussion is being provided to our clients and friends to analyze the challenges presented in this difficult economic environment when an FDICinsured institution experiences a capital difficulty and is directed by the Banking Regulators1 to restore the institution's capital adequacy.2 In the past four years, the FDIC has closed approximately 400 insured institutions—as of January 1, 2012, the FDIC has indicated that there were over 800 banks on its "problem bank list." The difficulties experienced by many of these institutions are summarized in this analysis—
(Originally published on September 29, 2011)
The Act of May 20 2011 implements EU Directive 2009/44/EC (amending the EU Settlement Finality Directive and the EU Collateral Directive), and amends the Collateral Act of August 5 2005. The Collateral Act has always been a lender-friendly implementation of the Collateral Directive. Most of its provisions have not changed and in general, the Collateral Act remains favourable to creditors in insolvency situations and other contexts.
Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Insolvency aspects of collateral arrangements
Beneficiary of collateral
Remedy for potential conflict with depository
Rights attached to the collateral
Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Insolvency aspects of collateral arrangements
Beneficiary of collateral
Remedy for potential conflict with depository
Rights attached to the collateral
Since the entry into force of the Financial Collateral Act of 15 December 2004 (the "Collateral Act") implementing Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims (the "Collateral Directive"), financial collateral arrangements have benefitted from increased flexibility and legal certainty in Belgium.
Numerous municipalities in California and elsewhere are struggling financially. Indeed, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Central Falls, Rhode Island have both recently filed for Chapter 9 protection. State governments may have neither the economic reserves nor the political will to bail out troubled cities and counties. These circumstances have raised the focus on Chapter 9 as a tool for reorganizing municipality debt obligations and has deepened the debate between states and their municipalities about the best strategies for addressing a fiscal crisis.
On 16 September 2011 the Netherlands Supreme Court rendered an important judgment regarding the exercise by a bank of its right to reverse a direct debit (LJN BQ873 SNS Bank/Pasman q.q.). In light of this judgment it can be concluded that, in principle, a bank may exercise its right of reversal not only if the direct debit caused the account to be overdrawn or (if an overdraft facility has been granted) the limit to be exceeded, but also if the bank will, as a result of the debtor/payer's bankruptcy, be unable to recover the claim resulting from the direct debit.
Recent remarks by the English High Court in the insolvency case Green (Liquidator of Stealth Construction Limited) -v- Ireland [2011] EWHC 1305 (Ch) suggest that in some circumstances, and at least in the context of fast-moving real property transactions, an exchange of emails may well satisfy the requisite formalities for creation of a binding and enforceable contract.