July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
While there are several important differences between the pending proposals to revise the system to resolve failing large financial institutions, they all have at least one thing in common: the belief that chapter 11 isn’t up to the task.
Editor's Note: The House Judiciary Committee passed H.R.5421 - Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 - on December 1, 2014.
On Sept. 10, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 5421, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014, by a voice vote.[1] The Act is the product of the Judiciary Committee’s long-standing oversight of the U.S.’s bankruptcy laws, as well as its recent examination into improving such laws for the resolution of bankruptcies of financial institutions.[2]
In the wake of the Great Recession,[1] many municipalities faced a widening gap between increased retiree benefit costs and decreased projected revenues.[2] Those cities also confronted “dwindling population[s] ...
On July 31, 2014, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting congressional delegate Pedro Pierluisi introduced legislation (H.R. 5305)[1] that would empower Puerto Rico to authorize certain government-owned corporations to restructure their debt obligations under chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. According to press reports, the U.S. territory and its corporations have a combined debt burden of $73 billion.[2] The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, of which Pierluisi serves.
Editor’s Note: On May 30, ABI hosted the Student Debt Symposium at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. The day-long interdisciplinary conference brought together educators, policymakers and practitioners for a series of panels about the causes and consequences of the $1.2 trillion student debt bubble. Click here to access the video recordings organized by theme and topic: http://go.abi.org/student_debt_2014.
Editor’s Note: For more information about the proposed Chapter 14 plan, register for ABI’s July 15th webinar titled “Proposed Chapter 14 and the Future of Large Financial Institution Resolution.” This webinar is being hosted by the Legislation Committee: http://goo.gl/bjid0z.
Earlier this year, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and 12 House Democrats proposed revisions to the Bankruptcy Code that would restrict executive compensation in business bankruptcies while purporting to preserve jobs and protect retirement benefits. The congressional sponsors of H.R.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), among others, has introduced “The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act,” which primarily seeks to restore the bank regulatory barriers that existed before 1999, when the original Glass-Steagall Act’s ban on commercial banks owning investment banks was repealed.[1] However, tacked onto the end of the bill is a provision that would repeal §§ 555, 559, 560, 561 and 562 of the Bankruptcy Code.[2]
In July 2010, amid the worst mortgage meltdown since the Great Depression,[1] the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) was enacted to promulgate pervasive new regulations on mortgage servicers.[2] In reviewing the causes of the mortgage crisis, the U.S. House of Representatives found a need to increase transparency and accountability in the mortgage-servicing field.[3] Accordingly, the Dodd-Frank Act incorporates new servicing regulations requiring mortgage servicers to disclose certain information to delinquent borrowers.
The appropriate venue for chapter 11 cases has long been the subject of debate, especially over the past decade. The debate’s most recent development is the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Venue Reform Act of 2011 (“H.R. 2533”), introduced on July 14, 2011, by Representatives Lamar Smith of Texas, John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, Howard Coble of North Carolina, and Steve Cohen of Tennessee (“Sponsors”). [1] H.R.
