The opinion issued by the Delaware Supreme Court (the “Court”) in the matter of CML V, LLC v. Bax, No. 735, 2010 (Del. Supr. Sept.
On February 22nd, the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the liquidation of Lehman Brothers' broker-dealer business denied motions seeking to modify the order approving the sale of the business to Barclays Capital. The Court noted the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the sale, the affirmance of that sale order, and movants' failure to challenge the order for one year. The court held that even if the evidence presented here were known in 2008, the result would have been the same, i.e., the sale would have been approved.
On June 15th, the Second Circuit held that district courts may issue anti-litigation injunctions barring bankruptcy filings as part of their broad equitable powers in the context of an SEC receivership. SEC v. Byers. Reuters reported on the involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed by creditors which prompted the district court's anti-litigation order.
On January 28th, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee had actual notice of an unrecorded refinanced mortgage when the bankruptcy petition was electronically filed simultaneously with schedules listing the mortgage as a secured debt. The Court held that the trustee lacked actual notice. The Court found that the filing of the petition was a separate event from the filing of the schedules. The trustee was therefore a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and under state bona fide purchaser law, the trustee could avoid the unrecorded mortgage.
As the impact of COVID-19 is felt across the globe, many airlines have grounded their fleet, ceased operating flights, and are potentially in breach of any financial covenants that they may have in their debt or lease documents, if not already in technical insolvency.
If an airline does go into insolvency, what should banks and lessors do to protect their assets? What issues, practical and legal, should they be aware of?
The Warning Signs
Goldman Sachs RMBS Lawsuit Moves Forward.
On March 28, Bloomberg reported that a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan declined to dismiss a securities lawsuit over residential mortgage-backed securities Goldman Sachs sold in 2007, noting that an appellate decision overturning her findings in a related case had altered the legal landscape. RMBS Suit.
On May 10th, FDIC Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg discussed the FDIC's authority to resolve failing systemically important financial institutions ("SIFIs"). Gruenberg outlined how the FDIC would implement its resolution authority, noting that it would place the institution in receivership, creating a bridge holding company for the SIFI's assets and investments. Shareholders and subordinated and unsecured creditors would be left in receivership, although some of the SIFI's debt would be converted into equity.
On September 7th, the FDIC announced the launch of a new program to encourage small investors and asset managers to partner with larger investors to participate in the FDIC's structured transaction sales for loans and other assets from failed banks. The Investor Match Program will help to facilitate partnerships in order to bring together sources of capital and expertise. Participants in the program will use a customized database to identify potential collaborations, which will be identified at the sole discretion of the participating firms.
On February 16th, the Third Circuit addressed an issue of first impression and held that the discounted cash flow method was the proper measure of damages under Bankruptcy Code Section 562 when a market price cannot be determined. The parties had entered into a $1.2 billion repurchase agreement for a portfolio of home mortgages. On the day the debtor defaulted, the distressed state of the credit markets made it commercially unreasonable for the purchaser to sell the portfolio and the market price would not reflect the asset's worth.
On June 7th, the US Supreme Court addressed the calculation of a Chapter 13 debtor's projected "disposable income" under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. When a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor's projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor's income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation. Hamilton v. Lanning.