On Friday, the OTS closed Peoples First Community Bank, headquartered in Panama City, Florida, and the FDIC was named as receiver.
Yesterday, the Minnesota Department of Commerce closed Prosperan Bank, headquartered in Oakdale, Minnesota, and the FDIC was named as receiver.
After holding a hearing on the topic this past July, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) released a report earlier this week entitled, “The Use of TARP Funds in Support and Reorganization of the Domestic Automotive Industry,” examining how TARP funds have been used to support and reorganize both
On Thursday, AIG announced a $4.35 billion loss for the first quarter of 2009, as compared to a net loss of $7.81 billion in the first quarter of 2008 and a net loss of $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Reports on the White House administration and members of Congress have suggested that the Treasury Department is nearing a decision to provide assistance to at least two of the Big Three U.S. automakers.
Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code that may affect secured creditors.[1] In 2012, the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”). The ABI Commission is composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.
In an adversary proceeding filed in the American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Delaware bankruptcy court affirmed that triangular setoffs are not allowed under the Bankruptcy Code and cannot be modified by contract or under the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provision. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 11-51851 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 8, 2013). Two contracts were at issue – a swap agreement between a bank and American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.
Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc1 case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.