Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12-mc-115 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2014) [click for opinion]
The Western Australian Court of Appeal has today delivered its judgment in the appeal of Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in Liq) [2012] WASCA 157 ( The Bell Appeal ). The Court substantially rejected the appeal. The decision has important implications for directors, financiers and bondholder investors. It is a salutary reminder for financiers of the consequences of "knowingly receiving" a benefit from a breach of directors' duties.
Background
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Arcapita, Bank. B.S.C. v. Bahr. Islamic Bank, No. 15-cv-03828 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) [click for opinion]
This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court decision of National Australia Bank Ltd v Garrett [2016] FCA 714 in which the Court stepped in to invalidate and restrain an improper registration on the PPSR
BACKGROUND
Background
Until recently Russian legislation was not familiar with the concept of close-out netting. Although there was no prohibition for market participants to enter into netting agreements, Russian courts would not enforce such agreements in case of bankruptcy. This led to the use of complex structures to avoid the negative consequences of the application of Russian law and was a strong argument in favor of using foreign entities and application of foreign law to derivative transactions.
On 1 May 2009, the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ("LBIE") applied to the English High Court for directions on certain issues relating to "Client Money" (as defined in the UK Financial Services Authority's Client Assets Rules, the "CASS Rules") held by LBIE. LBIE was regulated by the FSA and was required to comply with the CASS Rules.
In Crowden and Crowden v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd[2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm) the Commercial Court found in favour of the Defendant insurer on the disputed construction of an "insolvency" exclusion in a professional indemnity insurance policy. The case is a useful reminder of the approach which the English Courts take to the construction of exclusions in insurance contracts.
1. Background
Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon, owners of the New York Mets baseball team, invested in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Irving Picard, the trustee appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act to liquidate the business of Madoff and Madoff Securities, sought to recover over $1 billion from Katz and Wilpon on the grounds that they had made money from Madoff through fraud, constructive fraud and preferential transfers in violation of federal bankruptcy law and New York debtor-creditor law.
Goldman Sachs RMBS Lawsuit Moves Forward.
On March 28, Bloomberg reported that a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan declined to dismiss a securities lawsuit over residential mortgage-backed securities Goldman Sachs sold in 2007, noting that an appellate decision overturning her findings in a related case had altered the legal landscape. RMBS Suit.
Overnight Income Doesn't Float ERISA Plan's Boat.