In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 513 B.R. 624 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)
A purchaser of residential mortgage-backed securities filed proofs of claim based on alleged misrepresentations by the debtors in offering materials distributed in connection with sale of the securities. The debtors objected and sought to subordinate the claims as claims arising from securities “of” the debtors.
Back in the mists of time, a seller that had a valid reclamation claim but was denied the return of its goods was entitled to an administrative expense claim (a claim with a higher priority than a general unsecured claim and thus a better chance of getting paid) or a lien on the debtor’s assets. The 2005 amendment to § 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code changed all that by stripping away those alternative remedies.
In the well-publicized opinion of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC et al., 599 F. 3d 298 (3rd Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,1 held that Section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code)2 is unambiguous and is to be read in the disjunctive, thus allowing a proponent of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization to use the "cram down" power under subsection (iii) of that Section without allowing a secured creditor to credit bid on a sale proposed as part of the plan.
On June 1, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released an invitation for comment on the DFPI’s regulatory approach to crypto asset-related financial products and services, as well as the potential regulation of such products and services under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL).
On June 23, the New York County Supreme Court issued a rare preliminary injunction temporarily halting a mezzanine lender’s UCC foreclosure sale of the Mark Hotel in New York City because the procedures for the foreclosure sale were not commercially reasonable in light of conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (D2 Mark LLC v. Orei VI Investments LLC, 2020 WL 3432950 (2020)).
On January 27, 2020, FERC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) for rehearing en banc of that court’s decision finding bankruptcy court-FERC concurrent jurisdiction over certain power purchase agreements. Notwithstanding such concurrent jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit’s decision finds that the bankruptcy court’s concurrent jurisdiction is paramount, and that therefore, FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements are susceptible to rejection in bankruptcy.