The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to approve the method used by trustee of the estate of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) to value the net equity of transfers between BLMIS accounts. See In re BLMIS (Melton Tr. v. Picard), Case No. 1:15-cv-01195-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2016).

Background

Het aantal faillissementen in Nederland neemt af, maar de retail branche is er deze zomer toch niet zonder kleerscheuren vanaf gekomen: MS Mode, Sluiterij Mitra, Scheer & Foppen en McGregor zijn recent nog failliet verklaard. Bij dergelijke faillissementen zal door de curator altijd gekeken worden naar de (on)mogelijkheid van een doorstart. Een geïnteresserde koper met een goed bod is echter niet genoeg. Om een doorstart van een winkelketen te laten slagen, is vaak van belang dat de (goedlopende) locaties overgenomen kunnen worden.

Many courts recognize that a corporation's constituent (such as an audit committee or a group of independent directors) can own the privilege and work product protection covering the constituent's internal corporate investigation. Under this approach, the company's bankruptcy trustee cannot access or waive that privilege or work product protection. See, e.g., Ex parte Smith, 942 So. 2d 356 (Ala. 2006) (denying a bankruptcy trustee's attempt to access pre-bankruptcy communications between the company's independent directors and its Skadden Arps lawyers).

According to the Court of Appeal, instead of entirely putting an end to bankruptcy operations, the decision to close the bankruptcy case only "suspends the bankruptcy process", while restoring  individual rights to creditors. The appeal judges further indicated that "the bankruptcy regime stops existing, but the debtor remains under the threat of the re-opening of bankruptcy operations, which virtually survive".

Today, 26 November 2015, the Act implementing the European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Banks and Investment Firms (the “Implementation Act”) has entered into force. The purpose of the Implementation Act is to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") into Netherlands law and to facilitate the application of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation").

La Cour d'appel de Luxembourg décide que le jugement de clôture de faillite pour insuffisance d'actifs ne met pas un terme aux opérations de faillite, mais en suspend les opérations.

La survie d'une société au terme des opérations de faillite diffère selon l'actif récupéré par le curateur.

Les sociétés commerciales dont les opérations sont clôturées pour insuffisance d'actif restent inscrites au registre de commerce.

Legislation implementing the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") in Netherlands law and facilitating the application of the EU Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation") was approved by the Upper Chamber of the Netherlands parliament on 10 November 2015 and is expected to enter into force before the end of this year. The new law – the "European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms Implementation Act" – will be referred to below as the "Implementation Act".

Introduction
Objectives
Guiding principles
Main changes
Status

Introduction

On Sept. 30, a district court resolved a significant portion of outstanding litigation in the bankruptcy proceeding of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries.See Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 1:11-cv-06760 (S.D.N.Y. Sept., 30, 2015). This litigation flows from the debtors’ allegations that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC) coerced billions of dollars from Lehman on the eve of its bankruptcy filings in September 2008. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

The number of companies declared bankrupt in Luxembourg has increased tremendously since 2009, reaching a record number of 1,026 in 2012. According to the Luxembourg authorities, this situation is mainly due to the current legislation, which is obsolete and no longer suited to modern financial difficulties.

In 2009, the Luxembourg government decided that the creation of appropriate tools for companies in financial distress was extremely important, especially in the post-crisis period, and decided to tackle this subject.