Introduction
In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.
The Bottom Line
In yet another of the many cases against Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) trustees for their alleged responsibility for losses suffered by investors, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York precluded inquiry into the conduct of the trustee where a bankruptcy plan intervened. The plaintiffs were caught in a bind. Alleging misfeasance by the trustee prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case would have been barred by the statute of limitations. Allegations of misfeasance subsequent to the commencement of the case were swept away by confirmation of the plan.
The Bottom Line
On October 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC (“Momentive”) holding that, with one important exception, that the plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court comports with Chapter 11. Case No. 15-1682 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).
Our two-part article on non-con and true sale issues in insurance contexts continues with a deeper dive into the considerations that distinguish these issues from similar remoteness principles in a Bankruptcy Code context. In Part One, we explained some of the basics of state insurance law that bear on these issues and how these can give rise to different approaches in opinion-giving; in this Part Two, we identify some practical obstacles that arise in these kinds of contexts and opinions.
A Pennsylvania Hypothetical
The Bottom Line
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Debtors’ request for approval of a sale of property free and clear of liens encumbering the property. The court determined that the term “value” in section 363(f)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code referred to the face value of all liens on the property and not the “economic value”. Because the value of liens encumbering the property in this case exceeded the proposed sale price, the property could not be sold free and clear of all liens pursuant to section 363(f)(3).
On Nov. 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an important decision in favor of holders of more than $4 billion in secured first and second lien notes issued by Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (EFIH), which unwillingly had their secured notes repaid ahead of schedule in bankruptcy without payment of the “make-whole” required under the indentures. In re Energy Futures Holding Co., No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17 2016).
Market participants involved in distressed exchange offers have become accustomed to grappling with the implications of Trust Indenture Act Section 316(b) in the context of potential exit consents, i.e., are the contemplated amendments to the indenture governing the securities subject to the exchange significant enough to impair or affect the right of a holder to receive payment of principal and interest on or after the due dates of the relevant note?
The Bottom Line