In August 2009, an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme of arrangement to restructure the debt of IMO Car Wash Group, a highly leveraged UK based car wash company. This decision follows the similar use of schemes of arrangements in other restructurings. For example earlier this year an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme in the debt restructuring of McCarthy & Stone. In both of these restructurings, the subordinated creditors were left with no value for their debt claims.
On 4 March 2009, the Office of Public Sector Information published the Bank Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2009 (the Rules) and accompanying explanatory memorandum. The Rules came into force on 25 February 2009 and give effect in England and Wales to the new bank insolvency procedure under Part 2 of the Banking Act 2009.
Liquidators will welcome the recent decision of the Director of Corporate Enforcement to reduce their reporting requirement in cases where a decision has been definitively made either to relieve or not relieve them of their statutory obligation to take restriction proceedings against a company's directors.
As we have recently noted, the federal banking agencies have worked together to expand the pool of investors eligible to bid to acquire failing depository institutions. See our 21st Century Money, Banking & Commerce Alert entitled “OCC Approves Shelf Charter for National Banks to Encourage New Investment” (Nov. 25, 2008). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has recently modified the receivership process in less obvious ways that also may have important ramifications for investors.
On July 28, 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) published for comment a proposed rule that would require certain troubled depository institutions to maintain records of their qualified financial contracts (“QFCs”) in order to provide the FDIC with basic information when the agency is appointed as receiver. 73 Fed. Reg. 43635. Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the FDIC by September 26, 2008.
In the case of Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,1 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the payment of stamp taxes or similar taxes on transfers of property of a Chapter 11 debtor’s estate, contained in section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,2 does not apply to transfers of property made before a Chapter 11 plan is confirmed.
The hurdles for KERP programs have been raised too high, causing debtors to lose critical personnel to the detriment of post-petition operations, say Frost Brown Todd’s Ronald Gold and Doug Lutz in our series of chats with high-profile bankruptcy lawyers.
Q. What’s the most challenging bankruptcy you’ve worked on, and why?
In a decision in In re Enron Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129, No. 05-01025 (S.D.N.Y. August 27, 2007), the Honorable Shira Scheindlin, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, held that the sale of a claim that is subject to equitable subordination under section 510(c) or disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code may insulate the claim from subordination and disallowance when asserted against the buyer of the claim. At first blush the decision may be, and has been, read by some to offer relief and clarity to distressed debt investors.
For some participants in the debt and credit markets, insider trading risks seem like a problem for someone else. There is some statistical basis for that assumption; the law of insider trading has been developed largely through cases involving the equity markets. There is no basis, however, for a sense of immunity. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent settlement involving Barclays Bank PLC and Steven J. Landzberg, a former proprietary trader for Barclays’ U.S.
A recent bankruptcy court decision in the Southern District of New York may raise concern among brokerage firms who execute and clear brokerage transactions for hedge funds and similar investment vehicles. The bankruptcy trustee of the Manhattan Investment Fund (which the court found to be a Ponzi scheme and whose principal Michael Berger pled guilty to criminal charges) obtained summary judgment against Bear Stearns requiring it to return to the bankruptcy estate all the margin payments the fund had made in the year before it imploded, totaling $141.4 million.