Put your lender’s hat on. Wouldn’t it be great if you could prevent your borrower from filing bankruptcy in the first place? Unfortunately for lenders, a recent decision demonstrates how hard it is to prevent bankruptcy filings.
On December 1, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014(FIBA). The legislation passed on a voice vote and is supported by the major Wall Street banks.
All bankruptcy practitioners know that a debtor may choose which contracts to assume and which contracts to reject. But may a debtor reject contracts that are part of an overall, integrated transaction? In a recent bankruptcy decision, the court found the answer to be no, at least if the parties are careful in drafting their contracts.
On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed an issue left open in Stern v. Marshall.1 Instead of bringing clarity to procedural confusion created by Stern, the Court’s opinion in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v.
Due to inconsistent decisions in the Second Circuit and Third Circuit, there has been some uncertainty as to whether a purchaser of a bankruptcy claim is subject to defenses that a debtor would have against the original creditor. Recently, this issue was settled with respect to cases filed in the Third Circuit.