On 5 August 2015, the President of the Republic of Poland signed an amendment to the Act of 29 August 1997 on Covered Bonds and Mortgage Banks and related laws (the “Amendment”). These new changes will come into force on 1 January 2016.

On Monday 13 July 2015 the Eurozone Finance Ministers stated that they have entered into an understanding for further funds to be made available to Greece under the rules of ESM (combined with a more or less state controlled Greek trust fund for assets to be privatized) to avoid structuring a temporary Grexit. Such understanding is conditional upon the Greek parliament passing certain legislation on 15 July 2015.

Is it legally possible that Greece ceases to be a member of the Eurozone without exiting the EU and without changing the treaties which establish the European Union and what consequences would this have for existing contracts and outstanding bonds?

We consider whether it is legally possible for Greece to cease being a member of the Eurozone and what consequences such “Grexit” would have for existing trade contracts and loans with counterparties in Greece and the government bonds issued by the Hellenic Republic.

The legal principles governing corporate finance are often complex. Sometimes, however, the simplest of errors can be the most costly. Such was the case with a large syndicated secured loan made to General Motors. Due to a simple filing error, what had always been intended by the lender and borrower to be a secured loan will be treated as unsecured.

The Second Circuit Opinion in Motors Liquidation

Events are happening quickly these days with Caesars Entertainment.  On January 13, holders of second lien notes issued by Caesars Entertainment Operating Company (“CEOC”) filed an involuntary chapter 11 petition against CEOC in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Two days later, CEOC itself filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, setting up a venue fight over the bankruptcy case.  And later that same day, the U.S.

Introduction

In a move signaling the end of 6 years of litigation, the bankruptcy trustee for the holding company of failed mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”) negotiated a settlement agreement with the FDIC regarding the ownership of nearly $60 million of tax refunds.  If approved by the bankruptcy court, the settlement would resolve one of the most highly publicized tax refund disputes involving the FDIC, a number of which arose in the wake of 2008’s financial crisis.

Most lawyers are generally familiar with the concept of a floating lien under the Uniform Commercial Code. A secured creditor takes a lien in a collateral category that changes from time to time as items are added or subtracted. A common example is a working capital loan, in which financed inventory is produced and sold, then becoming an account, which is collected to provide the funds to produce new inventory.  A secured creditor may perfect a lien in the changing mass of inventory and receivables, as each category exists from time to time.

The insolvency administrators (hereinafter, “the Plaintiff”) of the company Santa Teresa Materiales de Construcción S.L. (hereinafter “the Company”) sought the declaration of invalidity of the transaction undertaken by the Banco Santander S.A. (hereinafter, “the Bank”) classified by the Plaintiff as debt offset.

In FDIC v. AmTrustFinancial Corporation, the Sixth Circuit considered the results of the very first trial in the nation under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(o). Section 365(o) is an infrequently litigated provision of the Bankruptcy Code that requires a party seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to fulfill “any commitment . . .