ICELAND INTRODUCES A PLAN TO LIFT CAPITAL CONTROLS

In a move that creditors have been waiting patiently forsince 2008, the Icelandic government has finally taken a step towards the lifting of capital controls which were imposed in Iceland after the financial crisis that will impact the main three failed banks;Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir.

On November 8, 2013, three monoline insurers of the City’s general obligation bonds commenced adversary proceedings in the City of Detroit bankruptcy case.¹  Through these actions, the monoline insurers seek to compel enforcement of the status quo for the general obligation bonds by requiring the City to continue to segregate ad valorem taxes in accordance with Michigan law.  As these actions progress, they may clarify whether state law protections for general obligation bonds apply in chapter 9 and test the jurisdictional limitations imposed on a bankruptcy court by se

With companies facing significant distress due to vast over-leverage, debtors have increasingly turned to asset sales under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, rather than Chapter 11 plans, to dispose of their assets quickly and begin the process of winding down their estates.  According to the UCLA-LoPucki Bankruptcy Research Database, less than 4 percent of all large, public company bankruptcies were resolved by substantial asset sales  from 1990-2000.  However, in the period from 2001-2010, that figure rose to nearly 20 percent – peaking in 2011 when 43 percent of large pu

On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a requirements contract for the supply of electricity constituted a “forward contract” under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, was exempt from preference avoidance actions.  The Fifth Circuit held that the contract in this case met the plain language definition of a “forward contract,” notwithstanding the fact that it lacked fixed quantity and delivery date terms.  Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc. (In re MBS Mgmt. Servs., Inc.), 2012 WL 3125167 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).

On June 22, 2012, Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted the U.S. Trustee’s motion to transfer the chapter 11 cases of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company and its affiliates to a different venue, notwithstanding the fact that the debtor’s prepackaged plan had been confirmed with unanimous support from its creditors, the cases were projected to conclude within 30 days of filing, and the debtors’ primary creditor constituencies supported venue in New York.

Last week the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down its decision in four appeals which raise a number of questions of construction in relation to derivatives in the form of interest rate swaps and forward freight agreements documented under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. Master Agreement (the “ISDA Master Agreement”).¹ In particular, the decision focuses on the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.

Key Points

In the W.R. Grace bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed its prior rulings on the controversial issue of a bankruptcy court’s power to enjoin actions by third parties against non-debtors.1 Resting on prior precedent, the Third Circuit held that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin third party actions that have no direct effect upon the bankruptcy estate.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court decision that invalidated the use by creditors of so-called “triangular”, or non-mutual, setoffs in which obligations are offset among not only the parties to a bilateral contract but also their affiliates. In re SemCrude, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42477 (D. Del.

A Delaware bankruptcy court recently delivered the first decision applying section 562 of the Bankruptcy Code to a claim based on the termination of a repurchase agreement. In re American Home Mortgage Corp., Bankr. Case no. 07-1104, Dkt. no. 8021 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 8, 2009). The court’s ruling creates additional uncertainty in the calculation of bankruptcy claims, not only with respect to repurchase agreements but also with respect to other safe harbored financial contracts.

Introduction