In re LTAP US, LLLP, Case No. 10-14125 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 18, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC, Bankr. No. 10B22668 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. March 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wealth Management, LLC, et al., 628 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.
In re Buttermilk Towne Center, LLC, No. 10-8036, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4563 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Dec. 23, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Young Broadcasting, Inc., et al., 430 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re SJT Ventures, LLC, 2010 WL 3342206 (Bankr. N.D. Texas 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Paloian v LaSalle Bank, NA, 619 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Hitchin Post Steak Co v General Electric Capital Corporation (In re HP Distribution, LLP), 436 B.R. 679 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas considered whether commercial vehicle leases that contained Terminal Rental Adjustment Clauses (or TRAC provisions) were true leases under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code or, instead, disguised financing transactions. The court held that the TRAC leases were true leases that must be either assumed or assigned pursuant to the terms of Section 365.
Good v RMR Investments, Inc, 428 BR 249 (ED Texas, March 31, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
A secured creditor in a chapter 11 case objected to the confirmation of the reorganization plan of the debtor, arguing that the proper “cramdown” interest rate (court-modified rate) was the pre-petition contractual default rate, rather than the significantly lower cramdown rate. After the debtor appealed, the District Court affirmed, holding that utilizing the contract rate of interest was appropriate because the debtor was solvent.