In re WM Six Forks, LLC, Case No. 12-05854-8-ATS, 2013 WL 5354748 (Bankr. E.D.N.C., Sept. 23, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., 68 A.3d 197 (2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re WL Holmes LLC, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2013 WL 4019397 (3rd Cir 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes ruled from the bench on December 3, 2013 (followed by a written opinion on December 5, 2013) that Detroit is eligible for bankruptcy protection, allowing the city to attempt to restructure $18.5 billion of debt. Thus begins the largest American municipal bankruptcy case. After nine days of trial, the judge ruled that although the city did not negotiate in good faith prior to bankruptcy, it was impossible for the city to do so.
CR&B Alert
Commercial Restructuring & Bankruptcy News
In This Issue:
• Consequences of the Failure of a Secured
Creditor to File a Timely Proof of Claim—2
• Private Equity Funds Potentially Liable for
Portfolio Company’s Unfunded Pension
Liability—2
• Make-Whole Payment Not ‘Unmatured
Interest’—3
• Tax Status of Q-Sub Debtor Not Estate
Property; Debtor Has No Standing to Challenge
Parent’s Sub-S Revocation—3
• Don’t Let Excess Insurers Avoid Coverage
Based on Settlements or Bankruptcy—4
When businesses pay for goods and services, they generally like to receive them. Unfortunately, as any bankruptcy lawyer will tell you, this consistent desire is not matched by uniform experience.
CASE SNAPSHOT
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a case of first impression, the Fourth Circuit determined that broker commissions shown to be reasonable and customary parts of settling stock sales constitute "settlement payments" and that the payment of margin interest constitutes "margin payments" under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code such that these types of payments are immune from avoidance and recovery by a bankruptcy trustee.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As part of the Lehman Brothers Inc. ("Lehman") bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York ("Court") determined that three banks’ (the "Claimants") claims in relation to repurchase agreements ("repos") were not "customer claims" entitled to customer protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA").
CASE SNAPSHOT