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:
Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC1 that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.
Facing the imminent bankruptcy of the federal Highway Trust Fund (the “HTF”) and the specter of delays and reductions in payments from the HTF to the States, the US Congress last week passed the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014, which extended federal surface transportation programs and funding through May 2015. We summarize below the key elements of the Act.
SHAREHOLDERS ARBITRATION
In a historic USD 50 billion award rendered on July 18,
2014, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted pursuant to the
Energy Charter Treaty held unanimously that the Russian
Federation breached its international obligations under the
Energy Charter Treaty by destroying Yukos Oil Company
and appropriating its assets.
The Tribunal, applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and sitting in The
ague under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ordered the
In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several questions that have confounded courts and lawyers for three years. Last week, the Supreme Court issued its first follow-up ruling, answering some of those questions and clarifying how bankruptcy courts are to handle so-called Stern claims. Despite that guidance, the opinion leaves several important questions unanswered.
As expected (and predicted), the bankruptcy judge in Dallas, Texas granted Mt. Gox’s request for an order of “recognition” that the debtor’s Tokyo insolvency action was a “foreign main proceeding.” She will also allow Mt. Gox’s bankruptcy trustee, Nobuaki Kobayahsi, to act as the “foreign representative” of the debtor in connection with whatever relief it might seek in the Chapter 15 case.
On June 18, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas will consider whether to grant recognition to the insolvency case pending in Tokyo. Based on the pleadings filed last week, it is a virtual certainty that the court will enter an order granting recognition.
On May 21, the bankruptcy trustee for Mt. Gox advised depositors that the bankruptcy case in Tokyo was proceeding. The information contained in the email was limited in scope, guarded and of little use in understanding the trustee’s view of how the bankruptcy ultimately may resolve.
On April 28, in the wake of Mt. Gox’s Japanese rehabilitation proceeding having been converted to a liquidation proceeding, a proposal for selling and restarting the Mt. Gox exchange was submitted in the pending class action litigation in Illinois. The proposal was accepted by plaintiffs in the class action litigation before a class had even been certified.