Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Financial services update, vol. 8, number 21
    2013-06-03
    In a case that should alarm secured creditors who thought they could lawfully exercise their secured creditor rights to foreclose on collateral, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld sanctions against a secured creditor that did exactly that. In 2006, the State Employees Federal Credit Union ("SEFCU") made a loan to Mr. Weber, secured by Mr. Weber’s pick-up truck (the principles in this case apply equally in the corporate finance world). After Mr. Weber defaulted on the loan in 2009, SEFCU legally repossessed Mr.
    Filed under:
    USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Secured creditor
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Winston & Strawn LLP
    FDIC proposes new resolution authority rules
    2010-10-18

    On October 12th, the FDIC published for comment proposed rules on how the agency would treat certain creditor claims under the new orderly liquidation authority established under the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rules bar any additional payments to holders of long-term senior debt, subordinated debt or equity interests that would result in those creditors recovering more than other creditors entitled to the same priority of payments under the law.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Winston & Strawn LLP, Unsecured debt, Collateral (finance), Liquidation, Subordinated debt, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 2010 (USA), US Federal Government, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (USA)
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Winston & Strawn LLP
    Third Circuit rules secured creditors do not have a right as a matter of law to credit bid in bankruptcy plan sale
    2010-03-25

    This week, in a 2-1 decision affirming the District Court’s reversal of a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured creditors do not have a right as a matter of law to credit bid their claim at an auction pursuant to a plan of reorganization where the debtor intends to impose the plan on its secured creditors through a “cramdown” under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code; i.e., a plan providing the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claim.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bankruptcy, Credit (finance), Debtor, Collateral (finance), Statutory interpretation, Interest, Secured creditor, Secured loan, Title 11 of the US Code, US Congress, United States bankruptcy court, Third Circuit, US District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Winston & Strawn LLP
    Lehman Brothers Court Holds Swap Safe Harbor Protects ‘Flip’ Transactions
    2016-07-08

    The bankruptcy court overseeing the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases rejected efforts by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) to recover roughly $1 billion in payments made to numerous noteholder defendants from the liquidation of collateral originally pledged to secure both obligations under notes issued by special purpose entities and credit default swap (CDS) obligations to LBSF, holding that the termination of the swap and liquidation and distribution of the collateral were protected by the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor.

    Filed under:
    USA, Capital Markets, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Bankruptcy, Collateral (finance), Safe harbor (law), Swap (finance), Liquidation, Default (finance), Credit default swap, Title 11 of the US Code, Bank of America, Lehman Brothers, United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for SDNY
    Authors:
    Jeff J. Friedman
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
    US judge rules JP Morgan’s collateral requests to Lehman Brothers in its dying days were mostly okay
    2015-10-04

    A federal judge in New York – the Hon. Richard J. Sullivan – mostly granted JP Morgan Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss claims brought on behalf of unsecured creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. related to JPM’s requirement that Lehman Brothers Inc., LBH’s broker-dealer subsidiary, pledge and post extra collateral in September 2008, shortly before LBI filed for bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Banking, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Collateral (finance), JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers
    Authors:
    Gary DeWaal
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
    U.S. Supreme Court upholds right of secured creditors to credit bid under Chapter 11 plan
    2012-06-04

    On May 29, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, resolved a high-profile circuit split regarding the right of secured creditors to credit bid in an asset sale under a chapter 11 plan. In RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank,1 the Court held that a debtor cannot deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid as part of a chapter 11 plan providing for the sale of assets free and clear of the secured creditor’s liens on those assets.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Credit (finance), Debtor, Collateral (finance), Secured creditor, Title 11 of the US Code
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
    FDIC issues proposal regarding enforceability of contracts for systemically important financial institutions
    2012-03-23

    On March 20, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed a rule (Proposed Rule), with request for comments, that implements section 210(c)(16) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act) , which permits the FDIC, as receiver for a financial company whose failure would pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States (a covered financial company), to enforce contracts of subsidiaries or affiliates of the covered financial company despite contract clauses that purport to terminate, accelerate, or provide

    Filed under:
    USA, Banking, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Insurance, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Collateral (finance), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 2010 (USA), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (USA)
    Authors:
    Jeffrey M. Werthan
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
    Lehman Brothers court, building on Semcrude and Swedbank decisions, denies triangular setoff by swap counterparty
    2011-10-11

    The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court), has held that section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits a swap counterparty from setting off amounts owed to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor to affiliates of the counterparty, notwithstanding the safe harbor provision in section 561 of the Bankruptcy Code and language in the ISDA Master Agreement permitting the swap counterparty to effect “triangular” setoffs. In re Lehman Brothers Inc., Case No. 08-01420 (JMP)(SIPA) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. October 4, 2011).

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Safe harbor (law), Swap (finance), Debt, Common law, Title 11 of the US Code, Lehman Brothers, Delaware Supreme Court, United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for SDNY
    Authors:
    Jeff J. Friedman
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
    ZING VII —implications for the bankruptcy remoteness of special purpose entities
    2011-09-28

    In re Zais Investment Grade Ltd. VII1 is the latest in a recent line of bankruptcy cases challenging bedrock assumptions regarding securitization special purpose entities (SPEs) and bankruptcy considerations in securitization transactions.2 Zais establishes precedent allowing a senior noteholder of a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) to place the CDO issuer in an involuntary chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to advance an asset management plan that would otherwise require supermajority approval of all noteholders (including all junior classes) under the related indenture.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Securitization & Structured Finance, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Unsecured debt, Collateral (finance), Debt, Asset-backed security, Maturity (finance), Liquidation, Bad faith, Cashflow, Default (finance), Collateralized debt obligation, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
    Not all bankruptcy “core” proceedings are created equal: a limitation on state law lender liability claims in bankruptcy court after Stern v. Marshall
    2011-09-14

    The scenario has become all too familiar in recent years: a borrower defaults on a loan and, when the lender pursues the loan collateral through foreclosure or other proceedings, the borrower files for bankruptcy protection. More often than not, when the lender appears in bankruptcy court to pursue its interest in the collateral, the borrower counterattacks with a host of state law lender liability claims.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Interest, Tortious interference, Foreclosure, Default (finance), Title 11 of the US Code, US Constitution, US Congress, SCOTUS, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 76
    • Page 77
    • Page 78
    • Page 79
    • Page 80
    • Page 81
    • Current page 82
    • Page 83
    • Page 84
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days