On March 15th, the FDIC published for comment a proposed rule that would establish the priority of payments to creditors when the FDIC acts as liquidator for a failed non-bank financial institution. The proposal also would establish the procedures for filing a claim with the receiver and clarifies the receiver's clawback authority. Comments should be submitted within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is expected during the week of March 21.

On July 2nd, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court's finding that, under Kentucky law, a bank did not perfect its security interest in an auto loan until that security interest was noted on the title. Because perfection did not occur within 20 days after the debtor received possession of the auto, Section 547(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code did not protect the bank's loan from avoidance as a preferential transfer. Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Brock.

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defines net equity as the amount of cash deposited by the customer into his BLMIS customer account less any amounts withdrawn.

During this time of economic upheaval amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, many corporate borrowers are faced with the inability to service debt obligations, and creditors may seek to hold corporate officers and directors accountable as a result. In these uncertain times, it is wise to review the fiduciary duties of corporate directors and officers and the effects of financial distress on such duties.[1] The following Q&A provides guidance on this issue from a Delaware law perspective, as Delaware is the most commonly cited jurisdiction for corporate governance.

Gupta’s $13.9 Million SEC Insider Trading Penalty Affirmed

On March 15, 2012, the American Bar Association’s Electronic Discovery (ESI) in Bankruptcy Working Group (the “Working Group”) published an interim report addressing certain principles and suggested best practices for electronic discovery in bankruptcy cases (the “Interim Report”). The Working Group was formed to study and prepare guidelines or a “best practices” report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve ESI in bankruptcy cases.

On September 13th, the FDIC voted to approve a final rule to be issued jointly with the Federal Reserve Board that would implement Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. That provision requires bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more and companies designated as systemic by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to report periodically to the FDIC and the Federal Reserve the company's plan for its rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure. The Federal Reserve will consider whether to adopt the rule shortly.

FDIC Proposes Rules for the Recoupment of Compensation from Executives of Failed Financial Institutions I hope this does not apply to any of you, but on Tuesday, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to clarify application of the orderly liquidation authority contained in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, "Orderly Liquidation Authority" (OLA).

On June 14th, the First Circuit modified the bankruptcy court's $250,000 sanction award against a mortgage servicer who erroneously claimed to be the mortgage holder. The mortgage servicer did not deliberately or intentionally seek to mislead the bankruptcy court and its actions were not prejudicial. First Circuit therefore modified the award to $5,000. In re Jacalyn S. Nosek.  

On February 10th, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed, in one opinion, two separate appeals arising from a company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At the outset, the Court held that a severance payment to the firm's former CEO was a fraudulent transfer. The former CEO was an insider, since he was still CEO when the severance agreement was signed, even though he was not employed when he received the actual payment. The Court held further that the company did not receive equivalent value for the severance payment.