In this case the High Court had to consider the mutual recognition provision in the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and the Winding Up Directive for Banks (WUD) which provide for how the insolvency of EEA banks should be managed by member states.

This case highlights the different tensions that arise in the aftermath of the collapse of Banco Espirito Santo ("BES") between how creditors are treated under the BRRD and WUD and the flexibility given to central banks to restructure good and bad debts when a bank fails.

In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.¹ The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its

Debtors Bankruptcy Petitions

These will shortly be made by Debtors online. We comment further on the change below, but we note that it is consistent with the Government's approach on a number of fronts to cut the taxpayer's bill for court costs.

The Insolvency Service has confirmed in the summer edition of its quarterly newsletter that applications for bankruptcy orders by debtors (as distinct to creditors) will be moving from the Courts to an online portal run by the Insolvency Service with effect from April 2016.

On July 28, 2015, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC provided guidance to 119 firms that will be filing updated resolution plans in December 2015. These firms include three nonbank financial companies: American International Group, Inc., Prudential Financial, Inc., and General Electric Capital Corporation. Based on a review of the plans submitted in 2014, the agencies have provided direction to each firm with respect to their upcoming resolution plans.

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.

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.