FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING & INSOLVENCY CLIENT PUBLICATION October 14, 2015 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Largely Dismisses Lehman’s $8.6 Billion “Slush Fund” Claims Against JPMorgan On September 30, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) denied the motion of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden: a shareholder loan does not in itself have a subordinated character. If subordination has not been specifically agreed, other creditors may file a claim on the basis of tort law or on the principles of reasonableness and fairness in order to achieve a similar result, in other words as if the shareholder loan had been subordinated.

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

Enactment

On 11 September the Belgian Act that introduces certain measures to restrict the activities of vulture funds (the “Act”) was published in the Belgian Official Journal.

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.

Op 23 juni 2015 zijn de wetsvoorstellen civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude door de Tweede Kamer aangenomen. Beide wetsvoorstellen behoren tot het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht en zijn gericht op fraudebestrijding. Deze wetsvoorstellen zullen mogelijk op 1 januari 2016 in werking treden. 

Het wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht bestaat uit drie pijlers, te weten (i) fraudebestrijding; (ii) versterking van het reorganiserend vermogen van bedrijven; en (iii) modernisering van het faillissementsrecht.

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.