A New York state trial court has held that plaintiffs alleging asbestos injuries may bring suit against a dissolved and liquidated New Jersey corporation and may effectuate service of process on the dissolved corporation by serving the corporation’s insurer. Germain v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., No. 190281/12, 2013 WL 6065986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct 23, 2013).
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Residential Capital (“ResCap”) cases issued an opinion on November 15, 2013 (the “Opinion”)2 allowing the unamortized interest associated with original issue discount (“OID”) that was generated in a fair market value exchange and claimed by ResCap’s junior secured noteholders (the “Holders”). While the OID ruling is only one component of the Opinion,3 it may have far reaching implications, as already evidenced in the pricing of other OID notes that were the product of fair market value exchanges.
In a recent decision [1] arising from the In re Residential Capital LLC, et al.
In an adversary proceeding arising out of the Chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”), the bankruptcy court denied in part and granted in part a secured lenders’ motion to dismiss certain claims in the case. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creds. V. UMB Bank, N.A. (In re Residential Capital, LLC), Adv. P. No. 13-01277, -- B.R. --, 2013 WL 4069512 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2013). At issue was certain collateral, which was part of the secured lenders’ collateral, that the lenders released to enable ResCap to pledge it to different third parties.
Section 4-9-513 of the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides that "a secured party shall cause the secured party of record for a financing statement to file a termination statement . . . within one month after there is no obligation secured by the collateral covered by the financing statement and no commitment to make an advance . . . ." Simply stated, when a secured obligation is paid and there is no commitment to make an advance, the secured party is obligated to file a termination statement.
Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the order confirming SRZ client Quigley Company Inc.’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan on July 30, 2013. As noted in our Alert of June 28, 2013, the plan enables Quigley to emerge from Chapter 11 over the objection of a dissenting creditor class and another group of asbestos personal injury claimants.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, applying the swap agreement safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") §546(g), dismissed a Chapter 11 litigation trustee's state law fraudulent transfer complaint against a bank on June 11, 2013. Whyte v. Barclays Bank, PLC, 2013 WL2489925 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013).
As part of the Lehman Brothers Inc. ("Lehman") bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York ("Court") determined that three banks’ (the "Claimants") claims in relation to repurchase agreements ("repos") were not "customer claims" entitled to customer protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA").
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.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) recently issued a memorandum decision in the American Airlines, Inc.