With the future of the New York City Off Track Betting Corp. up in the air, the New York Senate returned to the Capitol Tuesday, Dec. 7, to find itself in the middle of a long-standing battle between tracks and OTB corporations in the state.
Officials at the NYCOTB, which is in Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, vowed to shut down the stateowned betting giant at midnight Dec. 7 if the Senate does not pass a reorganization bill already approved last week by the Assembly.
On September 14, 2010, a New York state court entered an Order of Rehabilitation for Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company and Centennial Insurance Company (collectively, "Atlantic") to try to resolve Atlantic's insolvency and return it to the marketplace. The court appointed the New York Superintendent of Insurance as the "Rehabilitator" and directed the Rehabilitator to, among other things, take possession and control of Atlantic's property, conduct Atlantic 's business, and remove the causes and conditions that made this rehabilitation proceeding necessary.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.
A recent decision may provide important ammunition to Madoff investors against "clawback" actions brought by the SIPC Trustee overseeing the Madoff bankruptcy estate (the "Madoff Trustee").1 The Madoff Trustee alleges that investors who withdrew monies from their accounts fraudulently transferred estate property under state and federal law, regardless of whether they lost more than they withdrew.
The early 2000s witnessed a wave of chapter 11 filings by entities with liability for asbestos personal-injury claims. The large number of filings was matched by the variety of legal strategies that companies pursued to address their asbestos liabilities in chapter 11. The chapter 11 case of Quigley Company, Inc. ("Quigley"), was one of the last large asbestos cases to file in the 2000s and represents one of the more interesting strategies for dealing with asbestos liabilities in chapter 11.
Published in The Deal, January 5, 2011
The recent decision in Bank of America, NA v. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et. al.), No. 08-13555, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01753, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3867 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010) has shone a 10,000-watt spotlight onto the scope of common law set-off in New York.
Can a debtor seeking debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing under Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code grant a lender a lien on a leasehold interest in the face of an express anti-hypothecation provision in the underlying lease?
A New York appeals court recently dismissed one of two lawsuits filed against MBIA Inc. (“MBIA”) by more than a dozen major financial institutions concerning the bond insurer’s financial restructuring. The plaintiffs – owners of insurance policies issued by MBIA for structured finance products, including residential mortgage-backed securities – claimed that the bond insurer’s split into two units was intended to defraud policyholders.
In Bank of America, N.A. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Case No. 08-01753 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010), the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York was called on to decide whether Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) effectuated an improper setoff of $500 million shortly after Lehman Brother Holdings Inc. (“Lehman” or “LBHI”) filed its petition on September 15, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), and whether the setoff violated the automatic stay.
A recent opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirms a 2010 ruling by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy court, which rendered certain netting and setoff provisions unenforceable in bankruptcy. The core holding – that a counterparty cannot offset pre-petition and post-petition amounts – should come as no surprise to market participants.