On July 13, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refined the qualifications of “foreign representative” for purposes of granting recognition in a Chapter 15 proceeding.[1]
On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).
In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:
DERIVATIVES/ASSET MANAGEMENT/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY CLIENT PUBLICATION 12 May 2015 Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive – Implications for Repo and Derivative Counterparties The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)1 introduces an EU-wide regime for recovery and resolution planning for, and for resolution action to be taken in respect of, banks and large investment firms (typically the large sell-side institutions) (FIs)2.
Effective March 23, 2015, the Ohio Revised Code will contain robust provisions for the court appointment of a receiver, which will expand the statutory grounds for such appointments and expressly authorize enumerated powers for receivers designed to facilitate the receiver’s ability to liquidate assets. In many respects the revised statute codifies a number of existing practices.
On January 5, 2015, HM Treasury published the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2014 (“BRRO”) and the Banks and Building Societies (Depositor Preference and Priorities) Order 2014 (“BBSO”). The Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Special Bail-in Provision, etc.) Order 2014 and the Banking Act 2009 (Mandatory Compensation Arrangements following Bail-in) Regulations 2014 were published in December 2014.
On December 19, 2014, the UK Insolvency Service reported that two former directors of Connaught Asset Management, Nigel Walter and Michael Anthony Davies, have both been disqualified from controlling or managing a company for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively. The former directors allowed the misuse of up to £106m of investor money by failing to review the progress on loans made with monies borrowed from funds and not ensuring the money was repaid to the fund following loan completion.
The press release is available at:
It long has been the law that unpaid creditors of an insolvent debtor can complain if the debtor sells or otherwise transfers any of its assets for less than their fair value. Assume, for example, a company in financial distress sells one of its manufacturing plants to an unrelated purchaser for $15 million. If an unpaid creditor of the seller can demonstrate the fair value of the facility at the time of the sale was $20 million, the purchaser may be required to account to the seller, or its creditors, for the $5 million difference.