On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).

Judge Vincent Bricetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials cases affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation rulings on Monday, May 4.  Key themes raised in this case of interest to distressed investors and addressed in Judge Bricetti’s ruling include the appropriate interpretation of certain inde

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has denied approval of a settlement between Adelphia and its D&O insurers pursuant to which the insurers would have bought back their interests in the relevant policies issued to Adelphia for $32.5 million "with claims of others to policy proceeds...attaching to the proceeds of the sale."

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements:

New York, NY – May 21, 2007- On May 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that Klein & Co. Futures, Inc., a futures commission merchant, lacked standing under the private remedy provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act to bring a suit for damages against a board of trade and its subsidiaries for failure to enforce rules to prevent a manipulation scheme that led to Klein & Co.’s collapse (Klein & Co. Futures Inc. v. Board of Trade of City of New York, U.S., No.

“Give ups” by senior classes of creditors to achieve confirmation of a plan have become an increasingly common feature of the chapter 11 process, as stakeholders strive to avoid disputes that can prolong the bankruptcy case and drain estate assets by driving up administrative costs.

Equitable mootness is a doctrine grounded in equity pursuant to which an appeals court will dismiss an appeal of a bankruptcy order — even if effective relief could conceivably have been granted — because the implementation of such relief (e.g., the reversal of a bankruptcy court order) would be inequitable to third parties. This doctrine may be applied to achieve the necessary finality of bankruptcy orders and decisions that is required to effectuate the successful, expedient reorganization of debtors in bankruptcy.2

SRZ's reorganization group recently helped a lender avoid a surcharge against its collateral for legal fees. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur N. Votolato of the District of Rhode Island handed the lender the important victory on July 5, 2007, after an earlier trial. In re California Webbing Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 1953018 (Bankr. D. R. I., 7/5/07). In a detailed 22-page opinion, Judge Votolato held that the lender never consented to the use of its collateral to pay the fees of counsel for a Chapter 11 debtor and the creditors' committee in its failed reorganization case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on July 9, 2007, decisively affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an equitable subordination complaint filed by a creditors' committee against eight investment fund lenders. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Applied Theory Corporation v. Halifax Fund, L.P., et al. (In re Applied Theory Corporation), ___ F.3d ___, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16180 (2d Cir. July 9, 2007).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a lender liability class action brought by employees of a defunct originator and seller of mortgages and home equity loans. 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20791 (2d Cir. August 30, 2007). Agreeing with the district court, the Second Circuit held that the lender was not an "employer" within the meaning of the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), and thus was not liable to the employees for the sudden loss of their jobs. Id., at *2.