In our previous two news alerts,1 we examined decisions that potentially undermine key elements of the legal structures that lenders created in response to their experiences in the United States Bankruptcy Courts during the real estate downturn of 1988 through 1992, including the involuntary restructure of their indebtedness and liens under the cram-down provisions of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Codeâ€).

“[T]he bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying [the debtor’s former employees’] motion to compel arbitration” when the dispute turned on the relative priority of their claims, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Oct. 6, 2016. In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 2016 WL 5853265, *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2016). The Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) trustee in the liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc.

In Princeton Office Park, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy and district court rulings that the purchaser of a NJ tax sale certificate forfeited its claim and lien because it included the premium it paid to the State when it purchased the tax certificate.

In a recent memorandum decision, Judge Robert S. Bardwil of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California sanctioned a Sacramento attorney and ordered him to complete a local e-filing course because he did not maintain copies of filed documents that included the original “wet” signature.

Key points:

• While DIP Lenders rightfully negotiate for super-priority administrative expenses which trump post conversion chapter 7 administrative expenses, these provisions are not uniformly enforced.

• DIP Lenders should require the inclusion of specific language providing that section 364(c)(1) super-priority claims have priority over chapter 7 administrative expense claims, including those to be incurred by a chapter 7 trustee above the agreed upon “burial expenses.”  

Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York published proposed amendments to its local rules effective December 1, 2016 (the “Proposed Amendments”). Links to the Bankruptcy Court’s notice to the bar with respect to the Proposed Amendments and the full text of the Proposed Amendments are provided below. The Proposed Amendments are currently open for public comment. The comment deadline is November 14, 2016 by 5:00 p.m.

Below is summary of substantive changes effected by the Proposed Amendments which may be of interest to practitioners:

In an 8 page decision dated October 19, 2016, Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court overruled an objection to the reclassification of the claim of a terminated employee. Judge Carey’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”). This employee (“Mangan”) was a fifteen year veteran of the Debtor, and was entitled to 15 weeks of severance pay upon termination. That is not in dispute.

In an August 2016 decision in the Aéropostale bankruptcy case,¹ the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that allegations of insider trading did not justify equitable subordination and were not “cause” to deny a credit bid. The decision helps bridge the gap between the treatment of insider trading allegations in bankruptcy court and their treatment everywhere else.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2016)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this adversary proceeding arising from a transaction involving the sale of a restaurant and associated assets. The court finds that rights in the purchase agreement were effectively assigned to the plaintiff, and the purchase agreement should be reformed to reflect the proper selling party. Further, the court finds that various defendants are liable to the plaintiff on breach of warranty, conversion, and other claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch

A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas in In re Sanjel (USA) Inc.,et al., Case No. 16-50778-CAG (Bankr. W.D. Tex. July 29, 2016) explains that in a Chapter 15 case, the U.S. bankruptcy court will not always apply the law of the foreign jurisdiction to U.S. creditors and U.S.-based claims.