Last month, District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court ruling which held that the environmental cleanup obligations of debtor Mark IV Industries, Inc. were not discharged in bankruptcy.2 Given the current legal landscape, Mark IV may make the likelihood of discharging environmental claims even more difficult, potentially undermining chapter 11 as an optimal alternative for companies saddled with environmental liabilities.
A recent New York bankruptcy case holds that shareholders, directors and officers who dissolve a corporation to avoid paying a judgment against the business may be jointly and severally liable for a non-dischargeable debt in their personal bankruptcies.
In two recent decisions in the General Growth Properties, Inc., et al. chapter 11 cases, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York upheld certain loan provisions which provided for an automatic event of default and imposition of a default rate of interest upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case, and held that certain creditors were entitled to receive postpetition interest at the contractual default rate. General Growth Properties, Inc. and its affiliated debtors own, develop, and operate regional shopping malls across the United States.
A continuing theme of this blog series on Madoff has been the perplexing and inconsistent manner, virtually to the point of arbitrariness and unfairness, with which Trustee Irving Picard has handled charities that invested with Madoff. Installment
Following removal to federal district court of an action against AIG, defendants petitioned to refer the case to the district’s bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs’ claims arose out of a reinsurance arrangement between AIG and non-party The Robert Plan Corporation, who were engaged in the automobile insurance business. After a dispute regarding administration of the reinsurance treaties, plaintiffs – “family members and former shareholders” of TRP – allege TRP agreed to accept a certain sum as payment pursuant to AIG’s allegedly fabricated representations about its loss reserves.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court), has held that section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits a swap counterparty from setting off amounts owed to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor to affiliates of the counterparty, notwithstanding the safe harbor provision in section 561 of the Bankruptcy Code and language in the ISDA Master Agreement permitting the swap counterparty to effect “triangular” setoffs. In re Lehman Brothers Inc., Case No. 08-01420 (JMP)(SIPA) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. October 4, 2011).
On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a contractual right of a triangular (non-mutual) setoff was unenforceable in bankruptcy, even though the contract was safe harbored. In re Lehman Brothers, Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011).
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.
Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill Ltd.), Adv. Case. No. 09-8266, Bankr. Case No. 08-23660, 2011 WL 1549056 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS-CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.) No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT