The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to approve the method used by trustee of the estate of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) to value the net equity of transfers between BLMIS accounts. See In re BLMIS (Melton Tr. v. Picard), Case No. 1:15-cv-01195-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2016).
Background
As reported in Reed Smith’s March 2015 client alert, insolvency practitioners currently enjoy an exemption from the provisions of Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).
Many courts recognize that a corporation's constituent (such as an audit committee or a group of independent directors) can own the privilege and work product protection covering the constituent's internal corporate investigation. Under this approach, the company's bankruptcy trustee cannot access or waive that privilege or work product protection. See, e.g., Ex parte Smith, 942 So. 2d 356 (Ala. 2006) (denying a bankruptcy trustee's attempt to access pre-bankruptcy communications between the company's independent directors and its Skadden Arps lawyers).
The Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania has placed Lincoln General Insurance Company into liquidation in Pennsylvania. As a result, the Insurance Commissioner as Liquidator takes over the property, business, and affairs of Lincoln General; collects assets; resolves claims; and ultimately, distributes assets to creditors, including policyholders and claimants.
On Sept. 30, a district court resolved a significant portion of outstanding litigation in the bankruptcy proceeding of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries.See Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 1:11-cv-06760 (S.D.N.Y. Sept., 30, 2015). This litigation flows from the debtors’ allegations that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC) coerced billions of dollars from Lehman on the eve of its bankruptcy filings in September 2008. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
In a September 18, 2015 order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying administrative claim treatment to Hudson Energy Services, LLC (“Hudson”) for its retail sales of electricity to the debtor.1 The decision does not address any “safe-harbor” or forward contract issues, but is among a number of decisions providing for inconsistent treatment of such sales.
In a recent decision related to the SemCrude bankruptcy, the federal district court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings on the efficacy of certain common risk-mitigation tools used in the energy trading and marketing business – namely product payment netting and cross-product setup upon liquidation and closeout. The decision comes amid long-running challenges from producers who had sold product to the SemGroup entities on credit.
The case of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd was heard in Singapore recently, with judgment handed down by the High Court on 9 June 2015.
Of significance to liquidators and underlining the importance of this case to the insolvency profession in Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming stated that “it is undeniable that litigation funding has an especially useful role to play in insolvency situations”.
Key Points This decision brings clarity to liquidators taking appointments in Singapore on a number of aspects.
On 7 November 2014, OW Bunker A/S (“OW”), a global supplier and trader of marine fuel, filed for bankruptcy in Denmark. Further bankruptcies of OW subsidiaries and affiliates swiftly followed, including the bankruptcy of certain U.S. and Singapore-based OW entities.
SwissMarine Corporation Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWHC 1571 (Comm)
The Commercial Court has recently refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to SwissMarine Corporation Limited (SwissMarine) to restrain proceedings brought by O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (OW) against SwissMarine in Denmark.