One of the most dramatic tools a lender can use in the collection of a loan is the involuntary bankruptcy case.  It is dramatic because of the implications for both the debtor and the lender who files the case.

Many bank holding companies (BHCs) are beginning to face tough choices as the five-year interest deferral period on their trust preferred securities (TruPS) is coming to an end. Consider the following: on Feb. 10, 2014, First Mariner Bancorp, immediately following the end of its five-year interest deferral period on $52 million of TruPS, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition and announced its plans to sell its wholly owned subsidiary, 1st Mariner Bank, in a court-supervised Section 363 sale.

In connection with the bankruptcy of a bank holding company (the “Bank Holdco”) and its operating bank subsidiary (the “Bank”), there are often different classes of creditors competing for one tax refund.

On April 15 the Federal Reserve Board (Board) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the release of additional guidance, clarification and direction for the first group of institutions filing their resolution plans pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. These 11 institutions filed their initial resolution plans with the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC in 2012.

On December 31, 2012, Strategic Growth Bancorp Inc. (“Strategic Growth”), an El Paso, Texas-based bank holding company, acquired Mile High Banks (the “Bank”), a Colorado community bank, from the Bank’s parent, Big Sandy Holding Company (“Big Sandy”), through an auction process conducted pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Davis Polk represented Strategic Growth and advised on the complex and overlapping bankruptcy, mergers and acquisitions, credit, tax and bank regulatory issues presented by the transaction.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board announced the process for receiving and evaluating the initial resolution plans--also known as living wills--from the largest banking organizations operating in the United States. The agencies also gave a timetable for release of the public portion of such plans, which are due on July 2.

In keeping with the courts’ narrow construction of what constitutes “substantial contribution” in a chapter 11 case, an Ohio bankruptcy court in In re AmFin Financial Corp., 2012 WL 652018 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2012), denied administrative- expense priority to the fees and expenses of the holders of approximately $100 million in senior notes (the “Senior Noteholders”) issued by debtor AmFin Financial Corporation (“AFC”).

In a significant expansion of the potential risk for distressed claims traders, the Delaware bankruptcy court has recently ruled¹ that traders who engage in insider trading may have their claims subordinated to equity, and that traders who amass claims sufficient to block a plan of reorganization owe fiduciary duties to all other creditors and shareholders during plan negotiations.

The Federal Reserve announced the approval of a final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank resolution plan requirement set forth in Section 165(d) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule requires bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more and nonbank financial firms designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to annually submit resolution plans to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.

On September 13, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) approved a final rule (the “Final Rules”) to be issued jointly by the FDIC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) intended to implement section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) which requires each non-bank financial company supervised by the Board and each bank holding company with assets of US$50 billion or more (each, a “Covered Company”)1 to report periodically to the Board, the FDIC and the Financial Stability Oversig