We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance

Results: 1-10 of 449

A warning to sophisticated parties in fraud cases: do your homework
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • May 4 2012

On March 27, 2012, the Appellate Division, First Department issued its opinion in HSH Nordbank AG v. UBS AG, which reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the fraud claim

Talk tax quarterly news
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • USA
  • July 22 2011

Just as we were going to press bemoaning the impending January 1, 2013 effective date of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department announced an extension of the new provisions’ withholding and reporting requirements

Dexia SA cites Deutsche Bank's internal MBS descriptions in suit over $1 billion in RMBS purchases
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • July 25 2011

On July 13, 2011, Dexia SA filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court against Deutsche Bank AG and several of its affiliates in connection with its purchase of more than $1 billion in RMBS between 2005 and 2007 from the Deutsche Bank defendants

CDO fraud litigation and enforcement - 2011 survey
  • Lowenstein Sandler LLP
  • USA
  • June 23 2011

As of mid-2011, private plaintiffs and government regulators most prominently, the SEC continue to pursue fraud claims in connection with the marketing and sale of collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”

Anthracite vs Lehman Brothers finance s.a.
  • Sidley Austin LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • July 20 2011

An English court judgment in Anthracite Rated Investments (Jersey) Limited and Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. Fondazione Enasarco and (1) Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. (2) Anthracite Rated Investments (Cayman) Limited was handed down by Justice Briggs on 15 July 2011

This week in securities litigation (October 15, 2010)
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • October 15 2010

The focus was on Dodd-Frank this week as the Commission continued to implement the Act, issuing proposed rules regarding asset backed securities and derivatives

Federal appellate court affirms dismissal of AIG derivative suit
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • March 28 2011

On March 17, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of plaintiff Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System's derivative action on behalf of American International Group ("AIG") and certain of its current and former directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and contribution, as well as violations of the Securities and Exchange Act Sections 20(a) and 10(b

Enforceability of subordination provisions in synthetic CDOs a Lehman perspective
  • Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • United Kingdom, USA
  • February 3 2010

On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peck struck down a provision that used the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) to trigger subordination of a Lehman subsidiary’s swap claim against a securitization vehicle in the United Kingdom

Bankruptcy court rules that “flip clauses” violate Bankruptcy Code
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • February 5 2010

On January 25, Judge Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) in a case examining a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction and concerning the effect of event of default provisions on the payment priorities of LBSF as swap counterparty under certain swap agreements and the holders of certain credit-linked synthetic portfolio notes

Banking litigation update
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • July 19 2012

In Lomas, the Court of Appeal heard four joined appeals concerning the interpretation of various provisions of the ISDA Master Agreement