According to a U.S. Department of Justice press release, the federal government and 49 state attorneys general have reached a $25 billion settlement agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers to settle claims over alleged mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. If reports are correct, the agreement, which Attorney General Holder called the “the largest joint federal-state settlement ever obtained,” compels the mortgage servicers to adhere to extensive new servicing standards and provides considerable financial relief for homeowners.

Although no official claims process has been announced, on November 10 and 11, the Trustee and its counsel provided additional information to securities claimants of MF Global Inc. ("MFGI") on how the process will work. Additionally, the Trustee requested patience during the ongoing liquidation as it works towards developing the claims process and effectuating a bulk transfer of securities customers accounts.

Dissatisfied with the ongoing multistate and federal efforts to reach a settlement agreement with major U.S. banks over unlawful foreclosure practices, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley indicated that her office was independently preparing to file several lawsuits. A number of U.S. states, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, have accused the five largest mortgage servicers, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial and Wells Fargo & Co., of failing to follow proper foreclosure procedures.

• On October 12, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York brought TerreStar Network’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding one step closer to conclusion by approving the debtor’s $98 million settlement with two separate creditor groups over a certain purchase money credit agreement.

• On September 16, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice amended its complaint to enjoin the AT&T/T-Mobile merger to include the states of New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Washington, and Ohio as additional plaintiffs. United States v. AT&T Inc., No. 11-cv-1560 (D.D.C.).
• On September 19, 2011, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Texas largely denied the motion to dismiss of Verizon Communications, and related entities, against claims that they defrauded investors and creditors via spinoff company Idearc.

A fundamental premise of chapter 11 is that a debtor’s prebankruptcy management is presumed to provide the most capable and dedicated leadership for the company and should be allowed to continue operating the company’s business and managing its assets in bankruptcy while devising a viable business plan or other workable exit strategy. The chapter 11 “debtor-in-possession” (“DIP ”) is a concept rooted strongly in modern U.S. bankruptcy jurisprudence. Still, the presumption can be overcome.

W.R. Grace agreed to pay $250 million to the federal government for costs related to the investigation and remediation of asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana. W.R. Grace, a global supplier of specialty chemicals, owned and operated a vermiculite mine and vermiculite processing facilities in Libby from 1963 to 1990. The company and 61 affiliated companies filed for bankruptcy in April 2001. The settlement resolves a bankruptcy claim filed by the federal government to recover funds necessary to cleanup contaminated schools, homes, and businesses in Libby.

The current liquidity drought is pushing more businesses toward some form of financial reorganization. As the restructurings become more frequent, two different trends–one in bankruptcy and the other in private equity–will intersect. The result may surprise dealmakers searching the detritus for investment opportunities.

Yesterday afternoon, the House delayed a vote on H.R. 1106, “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009” (the “Act”) after a little over an hour of debate, amidst unexpected opposition from some Democrats.

On May 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the “Credit CARD Act of 2009” or the “Act”), Public Law No: 111-24. The Act is intended to crackdown on certain credit card practices perceived as abusive – such as retroactive interest rate increases, "double cycle" billing and the offering of "fee harvester" cards. For credit counseling agencies and those that advertise and market debt management plan services to consumers, the Act is notable in three primary ways: