About two years ago, decisions were issued by different circuit court of appeals that addressed the fundamental issue of whether a plan proponent can deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid on collateral of the secured creditor when the sale is made pursuant to a plan of reorganization. Both circuit courts, including the Third Circuit in the much heralded Philadelphia Newspapers LLC decision, found that a debtor could deny a secured creditor that opportunity. See In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d 298 (3rd Cir.
News reports in 2011 suggested that municipal bankruptcy filings were frequent and substantial. Each of Central Falls, Rhode Island, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Jefferson County, Alabama filed for bankruptcy protection in the second half of 2011. Even a state-owned local monopoly on (legal) gambling was not safe from financial turmoil in 2011: Suffolk County’s Off-Track Betting Corporation filed for bankruptcy on March 18. Indeed, 2011 seemed to be the year of chapter 9, which governs municipal bankruptcy filings.
Active participants in the derivatives market rely on the Bankruptcy Code safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) in pricing their securities. That provision restricts a debtor’s power to recover payments made in connection with certain securities transactions that might otherwise be avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. Two high profile cases decided in 2011 addressed challenges to the application of section 546(e). The more widely reported decision (at least outside the bankruptcy arena) was in connection with the Madoff insolvency case. See Picard v.
In a September 7, 2010 article, the Wall Street Journal reported an uptick in bankruptcy claim activity by traders and the desire of the traders to not comply with certain bankruptcy disclosure requirements that applied to “committees.” The Journal highlighted one case where Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon of the Delaware District Court held the following exchange with a lawyer for certain bondholders: “‘Are you a Committee?’ The lawyer began to answer, ‘Well, actually Your Honor, we are a group of - -’.
We have seen an increasing number of pre-packs over recent years, how does a pre-pack work?
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued a decision that will significantly limit the chances of success for many claims that the trustee of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (“BLMIS”) estate, Irving Picard, has brought against former investors in BLMIS to recover funds for the estate. In Picard v. Katz, 11 Civ. 3605 (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a decision that dismissed most of the causes of action brought against a group of investors under the U.S.
An article by the National Underwriter Company discusses a recent Moody’s report that asbestos claims are again on the rise after years of declining or flat claims.1 This has led several insurers to increase their asbestos reserves and Moody’s views this trend as a warning flag for the property and casualty insurance industry as a whole.
In the recent case of Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (In re Whittle Development, Inc.), No. 10-37084, 2011 WL 3268398 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2011), a bankruptcy court was asked whether a preference action could be sustained against a creditor who purchased real property in a properly conducted state law foreclosure sale. Recognizing a split of authority and some contrary principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its prior decision, BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994), the bankruptcy court found that a preference claim could be asserted.
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the decision of Stern v. Marshall, debatably the most important case on bankruptcy court jurisdiction in the last 30 years. The 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, established limits on the power of bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments on certain state law created causes of action.