A New York trial court recently held that affiliates and subsidiaries of a bankrupt Mexican holding company were liable as guarantors on indentures issued by the corporation, despite ongoing Mexican bankruptcy proceedings that could potentially discharge their liability under Mexican law. Wilmington Trust, National Assoc. v. Vitro Automotriz, S.A. De C.V., et al., No. 652303/11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011).

In a recent case, RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. Education Loan Trust IV et al., 2011 WL 6152282 (Del. Ch. Dec. 6, 2011), a holder of notes issued under an indenture claimed that the issuer caused the trust to pay excess and unauthorized fees that allegedly reduced the amount of interest payments to the noteholder.

Health care lenders and others evaluating or relying on the financial strength of a healthcare provider need to think about the potential recoupment and setoff of claims against Medicare/Medicaid receivables of the provider. 

RECOUPMENT

The Bottom Line:

The Bottom Line:

Defanging Stern v. Marshall¹: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Modifies the Reference of Bankruptcy Matters to Address Issues Resulting from the Supreme Court’s Ruling

2011 did not begin with a bang for bankruptcy professionals. Commercial bankruptcy case filings were infrequent and so too were the release (or publication) of major bankruptcy court decisions. The second half of the year was a different story.  

Click here to view table

This discussion is being provided to our clients and friends to analyze the challenges presented in this difficult economic environment when an FDICinsured institution experiences a capital difficulty and is directed by the Banking Regulators¹ to restore the institution's capital adequacy.² In the past four years, the FDIC has closed approximately 400 insured institutions—as of January 1, 2012, the FDIC has indicated that there were over 800 banks on its "problem bank list." The difficulties experienced by many of these institutions are summarized in this analysis—

A court affirmed the denial of W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos insurance claims against the liquidation estate of Grace’s insolvent excess-of-loss insurer, on the ground that Grace failed to submit timely “absolute” claims under New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Grace, which has been undergoing bankruptcy restructuring, had established a plan with a creditor’s committee to create a trust to pay asbestos claims.