Goldman Sachs RMBS Lawsuit Moves Forward.
On March 28, Bloomberg reported that a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan declined to dismiss a securities lawsuit over residential mortgage-backed securities Goldman Sachs sold in 2007, noting that an appellate decision overturning her findings in a related case had altered the legal landscape. RMBS Suit.
On May 10th, FDIC Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg discussed the FDIC's authority to resolve failing systemically important financial institutions ("SIFIs"). Gruenberg outlined how the FDIC would implement its resolution authority, noting that it would place the institution in receivership, creating a bridge holding company for the SIFI's assets and investments. Shareholders and subordinated and unsecured creditors would be left in receivership, although some of the SIFI's debt would be converted into equity.
On September 7th, the FDIC announced the launch of a new program to encourage small investors and asset managers to partner with larger investors to participate in the FDIC's structured transaction sales for loans and other assets from failed banks. The Investor Match Program will help to facilitate partnerships in order to bring together sources of capital and expertise. Participants in the program will use a customized database to identify potential collaborations, which will be identified at the sole discretion of the participating firms.
On February 16th, the Third Circuit addressed an issue of first impression and held that the discounted cash flow method was the proper measure of damages under Bankruptcy Code Section 562 when a market price cannot be determined. The parties had entered into a $1.2 billion repurchase agreement for a portfolio of home mortgages. On the day the debtor defaulted, the distressed state of the credit markets made it commercially unreasonable for the purchaser to sell the portfolio and the market price would not reflect the asset's worth.
On June 7th, the US Supreme Court addressed the calculation of a Chapter 13 debtor's projected "disposable income" under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. When a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor's projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor's income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation. Hamilton v. Lanning.
On January 19th, the FDIC announced that it will open a temporary satellite office in suburban Chicago to manage receiverships and to liquidate assets from failed financial institutions primarily located in Midwestern states. FDIC Press Release.
As American individuals, employers, and governments are implementing various restrictions from social distancing to quarantines to reduce the rate of new COVID-19 infections, each of these decisions results in an increasingly negative impact on the American economy. Even with the recent financial aid package passed by Congress, with greater credit constraints and a heightened sensitivity to weak consumer demand, small businesses are among those hit the hardest by COVID-19 restrictions.
Overnight Income Doesn't Float ERISA Plan's Boat.
On April 30th, the FDIC issued a final rule that treats a mutual insurance holding company as an insurance company for purposes of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The new rule clarifies that the liquidation and rehabilitation of a covered financial company that is a mutual insurance holding company will be conducted in the same manner as an insurance company.
On August 24th, the Third Circuit issued an opinion warning lawyers of the hazards posed by over-reliance upon automated, computerized communications between counsel and client. In doing so, it reinstated an order sanctioning a lawyer and her law firm for making false filings with the bankruptcy court. In re: Niles C. Taylor.