On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding¹ holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.

In a significant development for financial institution directors and officers, the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has filed the first lawsuit in the current financial crisis against former officers of a closed financial institution arising from alleged loan losses to the bank. On July 2, 2010, the FDIC filed a complaint in federal court in California against former officers of the homebuilding division of IndyMac Bank for civil money damages. FDIC v. Van Dellen, Case No. 2:10-cv-04915-DSF-SH (C.D. Cal.) (July 2, 2010).

Bankruptcy Court Hearing Regarding Sale of Lehman’s Investment Management Division

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In In re Cook, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 67 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Jan.

When a court awards a judgment to a party, it might seem as though the process of recovery has concluded. The successful party expects to collect and return to business. Yet, in some cases, the collection of the award begins another dispute, which companies should anticipate. Because many judgment awards include a total for damages plus an amount for interest set at a certain percentage to accrue per annum from the payment due date, an additional dispute may arise over the collection of interest owed.

Yesterday, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LBHI (the Committee) filed a complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

In In re Louisiana Riverboat Gaming P’ship (Global Gaming Legends, LLC v. Legends Gaming of Louisana-1, LLC) (“Global Gaming”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana stayed discovery in an adversary proceeding pending decision on a party’s motion to withdraw the reference to the district court, finding too much risk that the bankruptcy court would later be found to be without authority to handle pre-trial discovery for the “Stern-governed” core claims at issue. Adv. Proc. No. 13AP-1007 (Bankr. W.D. La. Jan. 10, 2014).

In In re East End Development, LLC, 2013 WL 1820182 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Apr.