A commercial real estate receiver’s powers will be clarified when Michigan’s Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (the “Act”) becomes effective in May. The legislation, signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on Feb. 6, 2018, effects many sweeping changes and answers a question plaguing courts: Can a state receiver court sell property free and clear of liens and redemption rights?

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan recently issued an opinion in a case that involved mutual claims between the debtor and a creditor, and lifted the automatic stay to allow a creditor to exercise “setoff” rights provided by state law to recover its debt.1

The Background

The deadline for interested purchasers of every child's favourite superstore, Toys R Us, to submit their letters of intent fell last week, with sources indicating that several parties had expressed interest in purchasing the beleaguered retailer. Hilco Capital, the company which saved HMV from Liquidation in 2013, have reportedly submitted a bid and are believed to be amongst the favourites for the troubled retailer.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Toys “R” Us has offered certain of its landlords an unprecedented payment package in exchange for more time to decide which leases it will keep and which it will dispose of in its chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The package includes payment of “additional rent,” including common-area maintenance, insurance, and real estate tax arrearages under rejected leases, amounts that ordinarily would not be paid in full. The deal may serve as a model for the treatment of landlords in future large retail bankruptcy cases.

In the recently decided case, Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit took a hardline position that trademark license rights are not protected in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy Code section 365(n) permits a licensee to continue to use intellectual property even if the debtor rejects the license agreement.

Context

Courts agree that bankruptcy trustees control bankrupt corporations' privilege – just as corporations' successor management controls privilege protection. But does the same approach apply in an individual's bankruptcy setting?

Looming maturity dates (for which borrowers are not prepared to pay the remaining balance) or other monetary defaults of numerous commercial mortgages may present many opportunities for purchasing property on a discounted basis. With proper precautions and investigation, what appears to be a “deal” really can be a “deal.” However, purchasing a property at a foreclosure sale or other distressed sale has many traps for the unwary. What appears to be a bargain can quickly turn into a nightmare, if the buyer rushes into the purchase without enough information.

The Second Circuit recently issued an important decision on a “related to” jurisdiction case arising out of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. SPV Osus, Ltd. v. UBS AG, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3088 (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2018).