According to a U.S. Department of Justice press release, the federal government and 49 state attorneys general have reached a $25 billion settlement agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers to settle claims over alleged mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. If reports are correct, the agreement, which Attorney General Holder called the “the largest joint federal-state settlement ever obtained,” compels the mortgage servicers to adhere to extensive new servicing standards and provides considerable financial relief for homeowners.

On January 19, 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In re River East Plaza, LLC , 2012 WL 169760 (7th Cir. January 19, 2012), affirming an order by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granting an undersecured creditor's motion to lift the automatic stay and dismissing the debtor's single asset real case. The debtor attempted to defeat the mortgagee's motion to lift the automatic stay by proposing a "cramdown" Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

A promissory note is a one-way undertaking. The maker promises to pay to the payee. There is nothing promised by the payee. The whole point of having a promissory note is to have a document that clearly states an obligation to pay. By contrast, most contracts are bilateral, meaning that each party promises to do something. And those promises are usually mutually dependent: if one party breaches, then the other may be excused from further performance. But that is not the case with a promissory note.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Monday, June 1, 2015, that Chapter 7 debtors may not rid themselves of second-mortgage liens in cases where, at the time of the bankruptcy, the first mortgage is undersecured. The decision reverses two Eleventh Circuit rulings that would have made such liens disappear under Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

A bankruptcy case^[1] (no surprise) has produced another instructive court ruling on post-acceleration enforceability of a prepayment (make-whole) premium provision contained in a debt instrument. This latest lesson comes via the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, affirming a ruling of that district’s U.S.

With the country officially in a recession and the lack of available refinancing options continuing, more and more businesses are faced with the realities of foreclosure. While foreclosure often allows a business to wipe the debt slate clean with respect to the foreclosed property, it can also create unintended tax consequences as well as tax planning opportunities.  

Recourse v. Non-Recourse Debt  

As the economy worsens and the value of corporate assets declines, unsecured creditors are finding that very little, if anything, is left for them at the bankruptcy table after the secured creditors have taken as much as they can from a debtor’s assets. Now, after a period of having copious credit available on attractive terms, debtors are going into bankruptcy without sufficient assets to pay even their secured creditors in full. In such circumstances, prospects for unsecured creditors are bleak indeed.  

Much is being written about the significant losses suffered by automobile suppliers to both the domestic and transplant automobile manufacturers. These losses are creating alarm among many others, including the OEMs themselves, according to Dave Hannon at Purchasing Magazine.

Under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer does not recognize gain or loss on the exchange of like-kind property. Before 1984, the Code did not specifically address so-called deferred exchanges - exchanges in which the taxpayer relinquished property and some time later received the replacement property - although at least one leading case did. The 1984 rules require that the taxpayer identify the replacement property within 45 days after the disposition and close on the replacement property and close within 180 days after the disposition.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion that should concern anyone doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy. In short, the court ruled that a company that supplied $1.9 million worth of goods to a debtor after the petition date had to return the debtor's payment. The reason? The debtor did not have permission from the court or its secured creditor to use the money. The payments were for value given post-petition and were apparently made in accordance with the pre-petition practice between the parties.