MFA Files Amicus in Lehman Litigation to Support Judicial Asset Sale Process

September 28, 2012

Click to expand relevant topics

Topics: amicus brief U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Lehman Brothers Holding Inc., Barclays Capital, James W. Giddens, Securities Investor Protection Corporation Trustee, amicus curiae, capital markets, no-cash deal, bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Code, Acton v. Fullmer (In re Fullmer), Adelphia Recovery Trust v. HSBC Bank USA (in re Adelphia Recovery Trust), Bass v. Parsons (In re Parsons), Big Shanty Land Corp. v. Comer Props. Inc., Folger Adam Security Inc. v. Dematteis/MacGregor, In re Cavalieri, In re Cedar Tide Corp, In re F.A. Potts & Co., In re Fehl, In re Gulf Coast Oil Corp., In re Integrated Res. Inc., In re Sapolin Paints Inc., In re Savage Indus. Inc., In re Silver Bros. Co., In re Smith, In re Weisser Eyecare Inc., M.R.R. Traders Inc. v. Cave Atlantique, Matter of Pease, Med. Malpractice Ins. Ass'n v. Hirsch (In re Lavigne), Meinwald v. Meinwald, Morgan Olson LLC v. Federico et al. (In re Grumman Olson Indus. Inc.), United States v. Sforza, Walker v. Lee (in re Rounds), Winston Inn & Rest. Corp. v. DeMichiel (In re Winston Inn & Rest. Corp.), Rob Copeland, Kelly DePonte, Financier Worldwide, Adam Levitin, Richard Mikels, Ella Shenhav, SIFMA, Illinois, Managed Funds Association, MFA, public policy, alternative investment industry, best practices, pensions, endowments, institutional investors, risk management, Australia, Europe, Asia, assets under management, AUM, bankruptcy court, transparency, contract, stakeholders, Clarification Letter, Lehman Margin Cash, purchaser, LBHI, Lori Fife, Harvey Miller, borrowers, lenders, secondary offerings, liquidity, interest rates, debtor, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, free and clear, banks, New York Adelphia, litigant,
From: MFA

To:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

MFA filed an amicus brief in the Barclays Capital and LBI SIPA Trustee litigation before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  MFA’s brief, while disagreeing with the position of the lower court, supports the reaffirmation of the principles of transparency and finality inherent in the unique Section 363 sale process, upon which capital market investors have come to depend.  MFA supports the Section 363 sale procedures under bankruptcy law: (i) non-ordinary course transfers of a debtor’s assets must be reviewed pursuant to the Section 363 notice and hearing requirements; (ii) public representations made at a Section 363 sale hearing are binding and can be relied upon by all affected parties including customers and creditors; and (iii) once a sale is approved, material modifications may not be made absent further Section 363 public notice, review and approval by the bankruptcy court.

You can view the amicus brief here and the motion for permission to file here.

Downloads