The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.

After nearly fifteen years of unsuccessful attempts to recover $71 million worth of securitized bonds after the 1990 bankruptcy of Continental Airlines, Inc., Bluebird Partners L.P. may have suffered its final defeat. In a recent decision by a New York trial court in Bluebird Partners v. The Bank of New York, et al., No. 601016/1996 (New York Co. June 7, 2010), the court granted summary judgment to defendant Bank of New York (“BNY”), holding that the bank behaved prudently in establishing a litigation reserve fund as the collateral trustee in the airline’s bankruptcy.

Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a new non-judicial receivership al-ternative for resolving troubled financial companies that could threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system (“Covered Financial Companies”), as described further below. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), on October 12, 2010, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “Proposal”) to begin to implement the provisions of Title II.

Ambac Financial Group Inc., parent of the troubled bond insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., said Monday that it is pursuing the restructuring of its debt with a group of debt holders through a pre-packaged bankruptcy filing. The Company added that if it is unable to reach a debt restructuring agreement, it will file for bankruptcy by the end of this year. The Company's statement can be read by clicking here.

As we first covered here, Ambac Financial Group Inc., the parent of the ailing Wisconsin-domiciled bond insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief with United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on November 8, 2010.

Introduction

Earlier this month, the chapter 11 trustee (the "Trustee") in the DBSI bankruptcy began filing adversary actions seeking the avoidance and recovery of alleged fraudulent transfers. The Trustee filed the adversary actions against various defendants, some of whom the Trustee identifies as "John Doe 1 -10." This post will look briefly at the DBSI bankruptcy proceeding, why DBSI filed for bankruptcy, as well as some of the events that have transpired since the compnay filed for bankruptcy.

Background

Cooper v Centar Investments LTD, et al. (In re Trigem America Corporation), 431 B.R. 855 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit (BAP) recently held that a mortgagee that held a collateral assignment of rents on property in which the debtor had no equity was not adequately protected by cash collateral orders entered by the bankruptcy court that granted the lender a "replacement lien" on post-petition rents.

A New York appeals court recently dismissed one of two lawsuits filed against MBIA Inc. (“MBIA”) by more than a dozen major financial institutions concerning the bond insurer’s financial restructuring. The plaintiffs – owners of insurance policies issued by MBIA for structured finance products, including residential mortgage-backed securities – claimed that the bond insurer’s split into two units was intended to defraud policyholders.