A decision this month out of the Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan (SDNY) could have a significant impact on the market for student loan securitizations. Student loan asset-backed securities (SLABS) are unsecured, but market participants typically assume that the underlying student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. A new ruling by the chief judge of the SDNY’s Bankruptcy Court challenges this assumption.
A number of recent structurings of investment-grade rated securitizations of oil and gas wells are sparking conversations in the U.S. upstream oil and gas industry about this relatively new, structured finance product. Although structured finance products are not new to the industry, interest in these products has been rekindled as exploration and production (“E&P”) companies seek alternatives to the more traditional reserve-based loans, equity financing, and bond issuances.
The Loan Syndications and Trading Association, Inc.
A mix of changing credit market conditions and political and economic factors in major economies may be opening up a window of opportunity for Brazilian borrowers to access cross-border lending. Given market dynamics in the United States, Brazilian borrowers may gain both covenant and pricing advantages by syndicating transactions in the U.S. rather than borrowing in the Brazilian loan or CCB markets. In some instances, this may allow Brazilian borrowers to optimize their capital structure with a multi-tiered composition of U.S.
In a recent decision that will be of interest to capital and structured finance market participants,1 a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York found that nonrecourse noteholders of a structured finance vehicle were not eligible petitioners under § 303(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore could not commence an involuntary bankruptcy case.
The chorus is getting louder from the stakeholders in the consumer finance and housing industries for legislative, executive or judicial re-structuring of the CFPB, so the CFPB probably thinks it has it pretty tough right now.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an adversary proceeding without leave to amend, holding that:
(a) the debtors failed to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure under California law;
(b) the debtors failed to state a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not third-party beneficiaries of the pooling and servicing agreement;
Thousands of mortgage lenders across the country either recently received, or will soon be receiving, this document from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI).
The Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee the power to avoid pre-petition fraudulent and preference transfers made by a debtor, except that a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a party enumerated in 546(e) of the Code "in connection with a securities contract." Although 546(e) has been applied in various circumstances, there is little court guidance on whether 546(e) protects transfers made to repay commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") loans. One case in particular has applied 546(e) to dismiss such an avoidance action: Krol v.