On January 25, Judge Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) in a case examining a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction and concerning the effect of event of default provisions on the payment priorities of LBSF as swap counterparty under certain swap agreements and the holders of certain credit-linked synthetic portfolio notes. The payment waterfalls (Priority Provisions) of most CDO transactions give priority to swap counterparties over noteholders.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of a motion by a debtor’s sole director to modify the automatic stay to allow payment of defense costs under the A-side coverage of the debtor’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. In re MILA, Inc., 2010 WL 455328 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Feb. 10, 2010, that a corporate debtor’s pre-bankruptcy severance payments to its former chief executive officer (“CEO”) were fraudulent transfers. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., ____ F.3d _____, 2010 BL 28145 (5th Cir. 2/10/10). Because of its holding “that the payments were fraudulent under the Bankruptcy Code,” the court did “not consider other possible violations, including [the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act] or [Bankruptcy Code] Section 547(b) [preferences].” Id. at *5.

George Miller, the Chapter 7 Trustee in the HomeBanc Mortgage bankruptcy, recently filed approximately 400 preference actions against various defendants under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to a Summons filed in one of the adversary actions, the first pre-trial conference is scheduled in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2010. The HomeBanc bankruptcy, along with these adversary actions, are before the Honorable Kevin J.

On March 1st, the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings and SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities upheld the SIPC trustee's method for determining the net equity held by the victims of Madoff's fraud. The SIPC trustee defines net equity as the amount of cash deposited by the customer into his BLMIS customer account less any amounts withdrawn.

Introduction

Section 548 of the United States Bankruptcy Code allows for the avoidance of transfers that are either intentionally or constructively fraudulent. Section 548 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

A recent court ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland clarifies the process for determining how much money investors may be entitled to receive in connection with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) proceeding involving the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The new ruling specifically related to whether investors could receive amounts equaling the totals appearing on their last account statements. The judge sided with the SIPC-appointed trustee, Irving Picard, who argued that investors could claim only the amount they first invested with Madoff (minus any withdrawals).

The Bankruptcy Court has now provided its long-awaited answer as to the scope of the Securities Investors Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) liability for investor accounts with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”). The ruling in favor of Irving Picard, the trustee responsible for the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) liquidation of Madoff, precludes recovery for many of the victims of Bernard Madoff’s infamous ponzi scheme and leaves the scope of the SIPC protection uncertain in future cases.

On March 18th, the Fifth Circuit held that a U.S. bankruptcy court may offer avoidance relief under a foreign country's law in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiffs had been appointed trustees by a Nevis court in a Nevis winding up petition. Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 15 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. alleging that the debtor had transferred assets to put them out of the reach of the Nevis court. The U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court’s ruling that, where subordination agreements lacked explicit provisions addressing the payment of post-petition interest on senior unsecured debt, the agreements were ambiguous, and an inquiry into the parties’ intent was required. After probing the facts and analyzing New York law, the bankruptcy court determined that the contracting parties did not intend to subordinate the junior unsecured debt to post-petition interest on the senior debt.

Background