Under the proposed new insolvency regime created by Dodd-Frank, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver of a financial company if it is determined that the financial company is in default or in danger of default, and the failure of the financial company would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States.The receiver is required to liquidate the failing financial company in a manner that imposes all losses on the company’s creditors and shareholders (rather than on taxpayers).
In re Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC, Bankr. No. 10B22668 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. March 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).
As revealed in a recent bankruptcy case, purchasers of contaminated property need to have a very clear understanding of their contractual remedies before proceeding with self-help. The case (In re Evans Industries, Inc., No.
On January 25, 2010, United States Bankruptcy Court Judge James M. Peck issued a decision that limited the ability of parties to swap transactions to enforce certain of their contractual rights against a counterparty that has filed for bankruptcy. See Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd.1 (the “BNY Decision”).
“The question that he frames in all but words
Is what to make of a diminished thing.”
Robert Frost, “The Oven Bird”
Introduction
In re Demers, 511 B.R. 233 (Bankr. D. R.I. 2014) –
A chapter 13 debtor objected to the portion of a mortgagee’s claim consisting of expenses related to foreclosure of its mortgage. She argued that since the mortgagee failed to comply with notice requirements under the mortgage, the foreclosure expenses were not valid.
In re Residential Capital, LLC, 508 B.R. 851 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –
An oversecured creditor claimed post-petition interest at the contract default rate. The debtors and the post-confirmation liquidating trust objected, arguing that the lender should be limited to the non-default rate.