What should be the remedy when a bankruptcy court holds that a security interest is avoidable as a preferential transfer, but the value of the security interest is not readily ascertainable? The Ninth Circuit recently addressed this issue in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re: Taylors), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5793 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court held that, since the value of the security interest was not readily ascertainable, the only available remedy is for the bankruptcy court to return the security interest itself, not its value, to the bankruptcy estate.

On May 11, the Board of Directors of the FDIC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “NPR”) proposing a rule which would govern the treatment by the FDIC, as conservator or receiver of a failed insured depository institution (a “Bank”), of financial assets previously transferred by such Bank in a securitization or participation transaction. The proposed rule would create a safe harbor to confirm legal isolation of these financial assets if certain conditions are satisfied.

Restructures of financially distressed firms often involve debt-equity exchanges. The concept is straightforward: the company issues equity to its lenders in exchange for their cancellation of some of the company’s debt. The company’s debt burden and interest payment expenses are reduced and its balance sheet is strengthened.

This paper is designed to provide a brief update of recent decisions of note that concern various ethical issues bankruptcy attorneys often encounter, focusing on conflicts of interest and privilege issues.

Following an initial FINRA arbitration award holding Steven Singer liable to Hartford Financial Holdings for compensatory damages, Mr. Singer filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. After a complicated procedural history, the Bankruptcy Court granted relief from the automatic stay and allowed Hartford to proceed with this action in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the closing of its previously announced sale of $233 million of notes backed by performing and non-performing commercial real estate (CRE) loans from 22 different financial institutions f

In a Bracewell & Giuliani client alert dated December 7, 2009 (which can be found here), we reported on a decision ("WaMu I") from Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court that required a group of bondholders of Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WMI") to comply fully with the disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

Applying Texas law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas has held that a primary insurer that "exhausted" its policy limits by agreeing to pay the insured's bankruptcy estate its remaining policy limits, while stipulating that a significant portion of this payment would be returned to the insurer by the estate's bankruptcy trustee, was required to reimburse the excess insurer the value of the returned payments made by the trustee. Yaquinto v. Admiral Ins. Co., Inc. (In re Cool Partners, Inc.), 2010 WL 1779668 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2010).

IN RE: SOUTH BEACH SECURITIES (May 19, 2010)

In our Distressed Investor Alert dated December 23, 2009, we wrote that Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, had returned to the public eye in light of the controversial revisions to Rule 2019 (“Revised Rule 2019”)1 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the "Rules Committee").