In Virginia Broadband, LLC (Bankr. W.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2013), the unsecured creditors committee moved to dismiss an LLC’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case alleging a flaw in the authorization of the LLC’s bankruptcy filing caused by an authorizing member’s individual bankruptcy filing. Specifically, the committee alleged that when the authorizing member filed his individual bankruptcy case, Virginia law divested him of his non-economic (voting) rights in the LLC.
On April 20, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to discuss public policy issues raised by last month’s report of court-appointed bankruptcy examiner for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Lehman Brothers), Mr. Anton R. Valukas. The Committee heard testimony from the following witnesses:
Panel One:
On August 11, 2009, in a long-anticipated ruling in the Chapter 11 case of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP), the court denied the motions to dismiss that had been brought on behalf of several of the property-level lenders.1 Few, if any, observers expected that the court would grant these motions and actually dismiss any of the individual SPE borrowers from the larger GGP bankruptcy, as doing so would have likely opened the door for the other secured lenders to seek dismissal.
Yesterday, in a bankruptcy court hearing held for Chrysler LLC (and 24 of its wholly owned subsidiaries), which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last Thursday, U.S.
Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc1 case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On Thursday, General Motors Corporation (GM) filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission which notably included an opinion of its auditors on its financial statements in which the auditors stated that GM’s “recurring losses from operations, stockholders’ deficit, and inabili
The two most recent decisions of the Supreme Court involving federal taxes illustrate how a conservative approach to statutory interpretation tends to prevail, but only with great effort, and changing constituencies.
Hall v. United States
Today, Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) announced a Global Settlement Agreement with J.P. Morgan Chase and the FDIC. Under the agreement, J.P. Morgan Chase will give WMI over $4 billion in WMI deposits in its former failed bank subsidiaries in exchange for over $6 billion in other assets. Also, the three parties will split two potential tax refunds worth a total of $5.6 billion.