IN RE: SOUTH BEACH SECURITIES (May 19, 2010)
The UK Supreme Court, which is the UK's highest court, has handed down its long-awaited decision in Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, in which the Court considered the validity and enforceability of so-called "flip" clauses under English bankruptcy law.
New criteria set out by the Bank of Spain will have a binding nature for supervised financial entities
Introduction
On 30 April 2013 the supervisory body of the Bank of Spain sent a formal communication to the financial entities subject to its supervision containing the criteria to be used with regard to the definition, documentation, follow-up and review of credit refinancing and restructuring transactions (the Communication).
Clearing and Netting Legislation
In re Madoff Securities Extends Morrison Framework to Prevent Avoidance of Purely Foreign Transfers under SIPA and the Bankruptcy Code
Second Circuit’s Quebecor bankruptcy decision offers comfort to capital markets participants that certain transactions will qualify for the Section 546(e) safe harbor.
In what appears to be a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that payments made to investors in a two tiered securitization structure commonly employed in commercial mortgage-backed securitization (“CMBS”) transactions are largely protected from fraudulent or preferential transfer claims by the securities contract safe harbor set forth in Bankruptcy Code section 546(e). Specifically, in Krol v.
Introduction
Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held, on June 25, 2013 (the “Lehman Op.”),1that claims under repurchase transactions (“Repos”) do not qualify as customer claims and therefore are not entitled to the priority or coverage provided for customers’ claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).
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.
Introduction