Inre Zais Investment Grade Limited VII, 455 B.R. 839 (2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Active participants in the derivatives market rely on the Bankruptcy Code safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) in pricing their securities. That provision restricts a debtor’s power to recover payments made in connection with certain securities transactions that might otherwise be avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. Two high profile cases decided in 2011 addressed challenges to the application of section 546(e). The more widely reported decision (at least outside the bankruptcy arena) was in connection with the Madoff insolvency case. See Picard v.
The usual Friday release of a large number of letter rulings by the IRS included several rulings of interest on reorganizations and consolidated return issues.
Today, the Federal Securities Litigation Blog continues its with its larger-than-usual blog entry examining the Top 10 securities litigation stories that were the most intriguing in 2011. As mentioned yesterday, like any sort of Top 10 list, not everyone will agree. Other bloggers will have their own lists with different stories. But on a personal basis, these stories that fascinated me – like a good book, I look forward to the next "chapter" in these stories in 2012.
Here's a quick headline look at the Top 5:
In a significant expansion of the potential risk for distressed claims traders, the Delaware bankruptcy court has recently ruled1 that traders who engage in insider trading may have their claims subordinated to equity, and that traders who amass claims sufficient to block a plan of reorganization owe fiduciary duties to all other creditors and shareholders during plan negotiations.
Investors have agreed to settle securities claims against more than 30 underwriters who underwrote in excess of $31 billion in debt and equity offerings for Lehman Brothers, the collapse of which was a key chapter in the global financial crisis. The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that the underwriters, which included Bank of America and units of Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, assisted Lehman Brothers in making misstatements about its finances prior to its implosion and eventual bankruptcy filing. The proposed settlement still requires district court app
Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 8, 2011 issued an opinion on a motion of the Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) trustee (“Trustee”) to confirm his determination that certain claims relating to settled on delivery-versus-payment “to be announced” (“TBA”) contracts do not qualify as customer claims against the LBI estate and therefore are not entitled to Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) coverage.
On October 31, the MF Global enterprise collapsed into bankruptcy and a number of related insolvency proceedings. Amid allegations of improper commingling of customer accounts and rumors of misbegotten proprietary Eurobond trades, two unregulated entities – MF Global Finance USA Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. (the Unregulated Debtors) – filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on October 31, 2011. Later the same day, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation filed a complaint in the U.S.
A federal judge sitting in New York but applying Maryland law recently held that a Directors and Officers (D&O) insurer is not required to provide insurance coverage because the policyholder breached the policy’s consent-to-settle provision when it settled a securities class action without obtaining the carrier’s prior approval. Federal Ins. Co. v. SafeNet, Inc., 2011 WL 4005353 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2011).
Although no official claims process has been announced, on November 10 and 11, the Trustee and its counsel provided additional information to securities claimants of MF Global Inc. ("MFGI") on how the process will work. Additionally, the Trustee requested patience during the ongoing liquidation as it works towards developing the claims process and effectuating a bulk transfer of securities customers accounts.