CIT Group Inc.

Yesterday, the Oregon Division of Finance & Corporate Securities closed Community First Bank, Prineville, Oregon, and named the FDIC as receiver.

Earlier this week, Barclays Capital Inc., the investment banking unit and capital markets unit of Barclays plc, and Lehman Brothers Inc., the brokerage unit of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., entered into a settlement under which Barclays Capital will receive approximately $689 million in cash and securities for securities belonging to customers of Lehman Brothers that were never transferred when Barclays plc closed the sale for Lehman Brothers on Septemb

Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

Over the past two weeks, the federal government has relied on nearly every legal authority available to address the unfolding crisis in financial institutions with large mortgage-related holdings — direct and indirect financial assistance, government takeovers and even a decision to let the bankruptcy process run its course have all come into play. Today, several new actions have been announced, together with proposals that would require Congressional action.

A Western District of New York bankruptcy court has held that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to leveraged buy-outs of privately held securities. See Cyganowski v. Lapides (In re Batavia Nursing Home, LLC), No. 12-1145 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013).

On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding¹ holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.

Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc¹ case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.

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.

Brexit

The potential impact of Brexit on securitization transactions

Impact of the referendum

Following the vote in the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 to leave the EU, there is some uncertainty as to how this will impact transactions.