There is a common misconception that lender liability is a thing of the past. However, a recent decision provides a warning to lenders that they can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a debtor’s business affairs.

Good news: structured dismissals have survived Supreme Court scrutiny. Bad news: dismissals may be harder to structure, given yesterday’s 6-2 decision overruling the Third Circuit in Jevic narrowing the context in which they can be approved. We now have guidance on whether or not structured dismissals must follow the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. The short answer is that they must.

In the latest ruling in the long-running dispute in Sentinel Management’s bankruptcy case, the Seventh Circuit recently held that a bank employee’s suspicions about the source of the bank’s collateral should have put the bank on inquiry notice, thus precluding the bank from asserting a “good faith” defense to a fraudulent transfer claim that a liquidating trustee brought against the bank.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in (Re) Indalex has changed the landscape for both lenders and borrowers in Canada who sponsor registered defined benefit pension plans. For lenders, carefully drafted loan documentation and effective planning can enhance the protection of a secured lender’s position in the face of the broadened scope of a deemed trust applicable to a borrower’s defined benefit pension obligations.

Prior to the 2009 amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”),¹  courts exercising jurisdiction under that statute could, in the appropriate circumstances, approve “roll up” debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements.  While it can take different forms, in essence, a “roll up” DIP loan facility is an arrangement whereby an existing lender refinances or repays its pre-filing loan by way of borrowings under the new DIP loan facility.  The priority status of the charge granted by the court to secure the DIP

Introduction

On 12 March 2010, the FSA published the statement that it had provided to the court appointed examiner of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which is referred to in his wider report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

View FSA statement to the US bankruptcy court examiner on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, 12 March 2010

HM Treasury has published a consultation paper which is entitled Special Resolution Regime: the draft FSMA (Contribution to Costs of Special Resolution Regime) Regulations 2010.

This consultation seeks views on all aspects of the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Contribution to Costs of Special Resolution Regime) Regulations 2010 which will be made under the new FSMA provisions when clause 28 of the Financial Services Bill is enacted.

The deadline for comments on the consultation is 15 June 2010.

The FSA has published the statement that it has provided to the court appointed examiner of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which is referred to in his wider report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers published on 11 March 2010.

View FSA statement to the US bankruptcy court examiner on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, 12 March 2010

On 9 October 2009, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a judgment (file no. IV CSK 145/09), in which it ruled that the Polish legal system provides for the possibility to secure claims under a parallel debt (created under foreign law).

Facts of the case