Recently, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the request of Washington Mutual and WMI Investment Corp. (collectively the Debtors) for confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plain of Affiliated Debtors. Among a number of issues, the Bankruptcy Court determined that the valuation of a captive reinsurance subsidiary (WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company – currently in run-off), which would serve as the most valuable asset of the proposed reorganized debtor was flawed.

The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing to consider an amendment to the venue provisions of the Bankruptcy Code proposed by the Committee’s Chairman that would require corporations to file voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the district where they maintain their principal place of business or have their principal assets. Under the current bankruptcy venue provisions of the U.S. Code, a debtor corporation can file its bankruptcy case in the state where it is incorporated, where it has its principal assets, or where it is headquartered.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a cross-affiliate netting provision in an ISDA swap agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy. In the SIPA proceedings of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI), UBS AG (UBS) sought to offset UBS’s obligation to return excess collateral to LBI against claims purportedly owed by LBI to UBS subsidiaries, UBS Securities and UBS Financial Services.

In re Tronox Incorporated, et al., 2011 WL 1815149 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

On Tuesday morning, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Board unanimously approved two rules regarding resolution planning: one rule for large bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (“FRB”),1 and the other rule for large banks.2

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that certain lawsuits brought by a bankruptcy trustee were related claims, even though they alleged unique causes of action, because they were based upon the same course of conduct.  The court also found that the trustee was pursuing claims both on behalf of the policyholder-debtor and its subsidiaries, and therefore the application of the insured versus insured exclusion was “unclear.”  Nonetheless, the court found that the individual insureds were entitled to 100% of their defense cos

Considering the fate to befall certain trademarks upon an owner’s bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court determined that a trademark license is not assignable without the owner’s express permission or in the absence of a clause explicitly authorizing assignment and a trademark license cannot be implied from a contract for services.  In re XMH Corp., Case No. 10-2596 (7th Cir. August 2, 2011) (Posner, J.).

On August 22nd, the Federal Reserve Board proposed a two-year phase-in period for most savings and loan holding companies ("SLHCs") to file Federal Reserve regulatory reports with the Board and an exemption for some SLHCs from initially filing Federal Reserve regulatory reports. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, supervisory and rulemaking authority for SLHCs and their non-depository subsidiaries was transferred from the OTS to the Board. The Board previously sought comment on whether to require SLHCs to submit the same reports as bank holding companies.

In this en banc decision, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision that laches, instead of the applicable statute of limitations, applied to the plaintiff corporate officer’s claim for indemnification, and thus upheld the Court of Chancery’s decision that plaintiff was entitled to indemnification for certain actually and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees and expenses.

In Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 906 A.2d 168 (Del. Ch. 2006), the Delaware Court of Chancery definitively weighed in on the tort claim that has become known by the popular name “deepening insolvency” when it dismissed a “deepening insolvency” claim brought by a litigation trust to recover money for the benefit of the creditors of a bankrupt estate.