This Client Alert addresses the impact on a customer of a futures commission merchant (FCM) with respect to his or her accounts held by that FCM prior to a filing for bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the Bankruptcy Code) by the FCM.

Summary

On November 4, 2011, the SIPC Trustee took his first steps toward transferring frozen customer securities accounts held by MF Global Inc. ("MFGI") when he announced that he will be accepting proposals for the transfer of all customer securities accounts of MFGI (the "Securities Accounts") to another member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. This action is in addition to the steps the Trustee took last week to transfer certain segregated commodities accounts from MFGI to other futures commission merchants.

On October 20, 2011, the Director of the Arizona Department of Insurance filed a Complaint to place PMI Mortgage Insurance Company (PMI) into receivership in Arizona. In an interim Order, the court required the director, as Receiver, to take possession and control of PMI, which had been under the formal supervision of the insurance department since August 19, 2011. The court also directed that certain related affiliates of PMI be placed under administrative supervision.

Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

The Bottom Line:

In recent months, U.S. bankruptcy filings – such as Omega Navigation (filed July 8 in Houston) and Marco Polo Seatrade (filed July 29 in New York) – have caught the attention of the worldwide shipping community. It is no surprise that some shipping companies have sought bankruptcy protection resulting from financial distress. Rather, the cause for surprise is that non-U.S. shipping companies have sought protection in U.S. bankruptcy courts. High-profile secured creditors in these cases have contested the exercise of the jurisdiction of U.S.

Last month, District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court ruling which held that the environmental cleanup obligations of debtor Mark IV Industries, Inc. were not discharged in bankruptcy.2 Given the current legal landscape, Mark IV may make the likelihood of discharging environmental claims even more difficult, potentially undermining chapter 11 as an optimal alternative for companies saddled with environmental liabilities.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the costs of complying with Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) proposed to be issued to certain Nortel and Lehman companies by the Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) qualify as “super priority” administration expenses, payable in priority to unsecured creditors, floating charge holders and the administrators’ own fees.

The question

Postconfirmation liquidation and litigation trusts have become an important mechanism in a chapter 11 bankruptcy estate’s arsenal, allowing for the resolution of claims and interests without needlessly delaying confirmation in the interim. The specter of postconfirmation litigation may seem unremarkable. Section 1123(b)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code states that a plan may provide for retention or enforcement by the reorganized debtor, the trustee, or a representative of the estate of any claim or interest belonging to the estate.

The Internal Revenue Service’s recently issued general legal advice memorandum (GLAM) should provide beneficial results to certain taxpayers that use a check-the-box election to convert an insolvent foreign corporation into a partnership.

Overview