In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.1 If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
On 30 November 2011, New York Senate Bill 2713A was delivered to the desk of Governor Andrew Cuomo for signature. If signed by the Governor, the bill will add provisions to the New York Insurance Law regarding the treatment of qualified financial contracts in an insurance insolvency proceeding. “Qualified financial contracts” include derivatives, securities lending, repurchase agreements, futures contracts and other financial instruments. These contracts are typically documented under master agreements providing for netting of obligations between the parties.
Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to find that a chapter 11 “cramdown” plan is “fair and equitable” to an objecting class of secured creditors if the plan provides for the realization by such holders of the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(ii), through reference to Section 363(k), permits the sale of collateral free and clear of liens if secured creditors are allowed to “credit bid”—that is, to bid the value of their claim in an auction of the collateral.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently issued an opinion in In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC1 in which it found, among other things, that the assignment of voting rights from a junior creditor to a senior creditor pursuant to an intercreditor agreement was unenforceable. The opinion was rendered in connection with the court’s decision to confirm the plan proposed by the debtor, the owner of the W Hotel in Boston.
Background
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
The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a cross-affiliate netting provision in an ISDA swap agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy. In the SIPA proceedings of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI), UBS AG (UBS) sought to offset UBS’s obligation to return excess collateral to LBI against claims purportedly owed by LBI to UBS subsidiaries, UBS Securities and UBS Financial Services.
On 26 June 2015, Vietnam loosened foreign ownership limits (FOL) in public companies by the adoption of Decree 60/2015 (Decree 60).
The Law on Enterprise and Law on Investment that took effect in 2015 introduced refreshing changes to Vietnam’s investment and business landscape. Designed to stimulate and better facilitate foreign investments in the country, the two new laws have since given rise to several implementing regulations that expound on important subjects such as foreign ownership up to 100% in listed companies, private public partnerships, trade, and representative offices.
On February 17, 2016, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (collectively, the “agencies”) jointly proposed a rule to supplement the statutory provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Orderly Liquidation Authority” or “OLA”) that govern the orderly liquidation of a “covered broker or dealer”—i.e., an SEC-registered broker or dealer that is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and for which a systemic risk determination to trigger the application of the OLA has been made.