In a recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York by Judge Martin Glenn in theIn re Borders Group, Inc. case, Jefferies was awarded a "Liquidation Fee" even though it was not involved in the actual liquidation of Borders Group, Inc. (the "Debtors" or "Borders"), and was unsuccessful in procuring a going-concern sale for the Borders business. As a result, approximately 400 stores were sold in September of 2011.

IN RE: IFC CREDIT CORP. (December 5, 2011)

On Dec. 21, 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey approved a liquidation plan for collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) Zais Investment Grade Limited VII (“ZING VII”). The plan incorporates a settlement between senior noteholders who had initiated the bankruptcy case by filing an involuntary petition against the CDO, and junior noteholders who were appealing the Bankruptcy Court’s April 26, 2011 order granting the involuntary petition.

The Bottom Line:

T he recent—and unexpected—rejection by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the modified plan of reorganization of Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WaMu”)² on the ground of a “colorable claim” of insider trading has raised questions about the standards of conduct for members of ad hoc creditors committees during corporate reorganizations.³ In WaMu, Judge Mary F.

The travails of Jefferson County, Alabama are well known.

In a significant expansion of the potential risk for distressed claims traders, the Delaware bankruptcy court has recently ruled¹ that traders who engage in insider trading may have their claims subordinated to equity, and that traders who amass claims sufficient to block a plan of reorganization owe fiduciary duties to all other creditors and shareholders during plan negotiations.

Introduction

The Bottom Line:

The Bottom Line: