Prime Brokers, Take Note
A recent decision issued by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the 'Bankruptcy Court') in <i>Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. (In re Manhattan Inv. Fund Ltd.)</i>, 2007 WL 60843 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2007) represents a significant event for securities firms, with potentially far-reaching implications for prime brokers.
Involuntary Petitions Under BAPCPA
Last month, tha authors noted that on Oct. 17, 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ('BAPCPA') was implemented without the collapse of the bankruptcy world as we knew it. They discussed the 'changes' to ' 303, and several key cases. This article continues the discussion.
Fraudulent Transfer Analysis Turns Sour
The Third Circuit, on March 30, 2007, affirmed a district court judgment dismissing a $500 million fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty suit against Campbell Soup Co., the former parent of Vlasic Foods International ('VFI' or the 'debtor'). <i>VFB, LLC v. Campbell Soup Co.</i>, 2007 WL 942360 (3d Cir. 3/30/07). VFI's creditors, acting through the reorganized entity, known as VFB, claimed that Campbell's March, 1998 $500 million stock sale (or 'leveraged Spin') of its Specialty Foods Division (including subsidiaries such as Vlasic (pickles) and Swanson (TV dinners)) to VFI, a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary, was a fraudulent transfer because VFI did not receive reasonably equivalent value and because its $500 million payment rendered it insolvent and under-capitalized. The Third Circuit, however, held that the District Court had properly found the Division acquired by the debtor to be 'worth well in excess' of the $500 million purchase price, and that the debtor was solvent at the time of its 1998 purchase. Relying on the District Court's market capitalization
Anti-Suit Injunctions
In a case of significance to the secondary loan and distressed claim market, a North Carolina state court has entered an 'anti-suit injunction' barring a group of secondary, secured debt holders (the 'Fund Defendants'), from commencing any actions against Wachovia Bank. The case, <i>Wachovia Bank, NA and Wachovia Capital Partners, LLC v. Harbinger Capital Partners, et al</i>, Civ. Action No. 07-CVS-5097, is pending in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division (Mecklenburg, NC) (the 'State Court Anti-Suit Action'), but its parties and the underlying facts arise from the Chapter 11 case of <i>In re Le-Nature, Inc.</i>, pending in United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (the 'Bankruptcy Case').
Involuntary Petitions Under BAPCPA
As bankruptcy practitioners awaited the enactment and effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ('BAPCPA'), the multitude of speaking panels, journals, and cocktail conversations offering their speculative commentary on the anticipated effects of the amendments to Title 11 paid increased attention to the proposed amendments' effects on the remedies afforded to creditors under ' 303 of the Bankruptcy Code ' namely the involuntary bankruptcy petition.
