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

September 28, 2012

Click to expand relevant topics

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