2011 did not begin with a bang for bankruptcy professionals. Commercial bankruptcy case filings were infrequent and so too were the release (or publication) of major bankruptcy court decisions. The second half of the year was a different story.
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 - -’.
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.
What information does the insolvency administrator have to provide to creditors?
Introduction
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) in its decision of 17 February 2011 (IX ZR 131/10) has been dealing with the issue which – since the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbrauchen - MoMiG) came into effect – is being controversially discussed as to whether loans by family members (in particular the shareholder’s siblings, spouse and children) in insolvency proceedings will be given subordinate ranking.
The risks facing a lending bank if the borrower becomes insolvent are often twofold. Not only are outstanding repayments in jeopardy, but, in the case of debtor`s insolvency, there is also a risk of voidable preference (Insolvenzanfechtung), where the insolvency administrator may challenge repayments already received and loan collateral granted before the insolvency filing.