On May 5th, the Senate voted 93-5 to adopt an amendment proposed by Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby that would give the FDIC authority to liquidate failing financial institutions without the creation of a controversial $50 billion "bailout" fund. Instead, the FDIC would use a new line of credit with the Treasury Department, supported by the assets of the failed institution, to pay the liquidation expenses.

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.

On Friday, Washington Mutual Inc. (WMI), the holding company that owned Washington Mutual Bank (WMB), filed a disclosure statement and amended reorganization plan with the U.S.

On May 20, 2010 the Senate passed the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (the "Senate Bill") 59-39, only hours after the cloture vote ended debate on the bill. The House passed its version—the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (the "House Bill")—in December 2009. The primary stated focus of the Senate and House Bills is to prevent the failure of the "too big to fail" institutions and to avoid government (taxpayer) bailouts in the future.

The comprehensive financial reform bill recently passed by the Senate1 creates a new “orderly liquidation authority” (“OLA”) that would allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) to seize control of a financial company2 whose imminent collapse is determined to threaten the financial system as a whole.

On June 2, 2010, the Third Circuit overruled longstanding precedent interpreting the definition of a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code. In JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), No. 09-1563, slip op., (3d Cir. June 2, 2010) an en banc panel rejected the state law accrual theory of claims recognition established in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (Matter of M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), in favor of the more widely followed conduct test theory.

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut recently dismissed a customer suit against an insurer, based upon its determination that all of the underlying claims were excluded by the policy’s Insolvency Exclusion.1 Associated Community Bancorp, Inc., et al. v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., et al.

Recently, the LandSource Creditor Litigation Liquidating Trust (the "Litigation Trust"), commenced various avoidance actions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This post will look briefly at the events leading to the commencement of this bankruptcy proceeding. Further, the post will look at some of the issues that confronted the Debtor during the reorganization process.

Background

A “roll-up” is a form of postpetition financing which has the effect of elevating the priority of prepetition debt. In a roll-up, the prepetition debt of the postpetition, new money lenders is rolled into the debtor in possession financing, thus affording the prepetition debt superpriority status and, in many circumstances, ensuring the rolled-up debt is paid in full on the effective date of the plan of reorganization, (unless the lender consents to different treatment under the plan).1

In Schwab v. Reilly, the United States Supreme Court recently reversed a decision from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the need for a bankruptcy trustee to lodge an objection to an exemption where the property is actually worth more than the amount claimed by the exemption. The Supreme Court took the opportunity in this case to also clarify its prior ruling in Taylor v.