Today, the Federal Securities Litigation Blog continues its with its larger-than-usual blog entry examining the Top 10 securities litigation stories that were the most intriguing in 2011. As mentioned yesterday, like any sort of Top 10 list, not everyone will agree. Other bloggers will have their own lists with different stories. But on a personal basis, these stories that fascinated me – like a good book, I look forward to the next "chapter" in these stories in 2012.

Here's a quick headline look at the Top 5:

The Bottom Line:

In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases (the Show Cause Order), Judge Karen Brown has directed Omega’s Senior Lenders, Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee to show cause whether they should be sanctioned for the conduct described in the Show Cause Order, a copy of which can be found HERE.

In the last several months, there have been some significant legal developments that could impact acquisition finance. This article will survey some of the more notable ones.

In a case with implications for buyers of assets in a bankruptcy court-ordered sale under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued a decision limiting the ability of manufacturers that are debtors in a bankruptcy case to sell assets free and clear of future liabilities.

It finally happened. On 12 December 2011, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Senate Bill 2713A into law. The bill, which was passed by the legislature in June, adds important provisions to the New York Insurance Law regarding the treatment of qualified financial contracts in an insurance insolvency proceeding.

Senior lenders often insist that subordinate lenders assign to them, under subordination and intercreditor agreements, their right to vote on a plan of reorganization proposed for the borrower should it end up in chapter 11.  The intention of such assignments is to prevent junior lenders from facilitating or preventing confirmation of bankruptcy plans contrary to the desires of senior lenders.  Lenders should be aware, however, that courts disagree whether such plan voting rights assignments are enforceable.  In fact, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Mas

IN RE: RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORP. (OCTOBER 31, 2011)

Can a U.S. patent licensee whose license has been rejected by a licensor under foreign law in a foreign bankruptcy rely on the protections of § 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code? On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion addressing this in the Chapter 15 case of Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”).⁵ The bankruptcy court held that the application of § 365(n) to executory licenses to U.S. patents was required to sufficiently protect the interests of U.S.

• On December 20, 2011, the South Carolina Public Service Commission (SC PSC) issued a scheduling order for AT&T South Carolina’s complaint against Halo Wireless. AT&T alleges that Halo, which filed for bankruptcy protection after AT&T initiated this action and similar complaints in several other states, was sending AT&T landline-originated traffic but refused to pay terminating access charges. AT&T also alleges that Halo has been manipulating call signaling information to hide the traffic’s true origin and to make it appear as wireless-originated traffic.

On Monday, December 12, 2011, Madoff trustee Irving Picard filed a lawsuit against Credit Suisse Group AG in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan alleging it and several of its affiliates harbored money that belonged to Madoff's estate.  Specifically, Picard is attempting to recover $375 million, representing funds that were deposited with Credit Suisse through two of Madoff's largest feeder funds, Fairfield Sentry Ltd.