In brief:

Jersey law ruling will have far reaching ramifications for trust administration in common law jurisdictions

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision on a question of first impression before the court: whether section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to administrative claims arising under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. See, generally, ASM Capital, L.P. v. Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.), 582 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2009).

In the current market turmoil, several banking and insurance names have already had to be rescued by government-brokered packages. It is therefore timely to review what rights institutional investors have in the event of counterparty insolvency. Unfortunately, the picture is complicated, not just because the question of how pension fund investors can get their money back may have an international dimension, but also because governments keep moving the goalposts on the availability and adequacy of compensation schemes.

Where does the claim arise?

A landmark ruling has paved the way for companies to restructure without necessarily making their pension scheme ineligible for the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). Trustees in the case of L v M sought the court’s support (and that of the Pensions Regulator) for a plan to prevent the insolvency of the sponsoring employer which would result in an apportionment of the debt due to the scheme from the employers, the winding up of the scheme and would take the scheme into the PPF.

The case held that a judge was right to strike out a claim brought by a liquidator under sections 238 and 241 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the transactions alleged to have been made at an undervalue were not transactions entered into by the company.

Comment

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.

Recently the German Federal Government introduced a reform of the German Insolvency Code by adopting a draft bill of an Act to Further Facilitate the Restructuring of Businesses (the “Bill”). The Bill primarily focuses on the facilitation of insolvency plans as a tool for restructurings and to eliminate certain obstacles of the German insolvency law. If enacted as proposed, the Bill would simplify the purchase of shares of an insolvent company and would give investors more influence and flexibility in in-solvency plan proceedings.

INSOLVENCY PLANS

Seeking to have an independent examiner investigate a debtor or its management can be a powerful tool available to creditors and other interested parties in a bankruptcy case. Typically, a party might request that an examiner be appointed if the debtor or its management is suspected of fraud or other misconduct. The low cost associated with making the request, together with recent positive outcomes for requesting creditors, may help to increasingly popularize the use of examiner requests by parties seeking leverage in bankruptcy plan negotiations.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an important ruling on March 1, 2010 in the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (Madoff Securities), adopting the trustee’s method of determining “net equity” for purposes of distributing “customer property” and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) funds under SIPA.3

Securities Investor Protection Act