On Sept. 12, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny payment of a make-whole premium (the “Make-Whole Amount”) to bondholders under three separate indentures (the “Indentures”) based on the plain language of those agreements. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. AMR Corp. et al. (In re AMR Corp.), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4840474 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (“In re AMR Corp. II”).
A lender’s right to recover a make-whole premium as part of its allowed claim in a bankruptcy case has been the subject of several recent court decisions. A Delaware bankruptcy court recently allowed a make-whole premium of $23.7 million on a $67 million term loan[1] and found that the premium was not “plainly disproportionate” to the creditor’s possible loss. As a result, the make-whole was not an unenforceable penalty under New York law. In re School Specialty, Inc., No. 13-10125, Slip Op. (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 22, 2013).[2]
Facts
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an insider preference complaint by Capmark Financial Group Inc. and its affiliates ("Capmark") seeking to recover a $145 million pre-bankruptcy payment from a lender group. Capmark Financial Group Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2013 WL 1420243 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender “lost its possessory lien when it turned the Debtor’s account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection.” In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., _____ B.R. 2013 _____, 2013WL 1188041, *5 (8th Cir. B.A.P. March 25, 2013) (emphasis added).
The Senate Judiciary Committee in February approved Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons to head the Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts for the 113th Congress. This gives Coons oversight of the nation’s bankruptcy court system, as well as court administration and management, judicial rules and procedures, the creation of new courts and judgeships, and legal reform and liability issues.
Chapter 11 creditors’ committees and debtors continue to challenge lenders’ prepayment premiums, commitment fees and post-bankruptcy interest claims in reorganization cases. Nevertheless, courts regularly reject these challenges in well-reasoned decisions.
Chapter 11 creditors' committees and debtors continue to challenge lenders' prepayment premiums, commitment fees and post-bankruptcy interest claims in reorganization cases. Nevertheless, courts regularly reject these challenges in well-reasoned decisions. This Alert focuses on two of these recent decisions:In re Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 2017952 (9th Cir.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, on May 15, 2012, reversed a district court's February 2011 decision that lenders were not liable on a fraudulent transfer claim. In re TOUSA, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. 5/15/12).[1] It rejected the district court's finding that corporate subsidiaries had received "reasonably equivalent value" when they encumbered their assets to secure a loan made to them and their corporate parent.
A years-long political duel over whether California should control local government bankruptcies was resolved on October 9, 2011. Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides specifically for the reorganization of cities and towns, taxing districts, municipal utilities, and school districts. California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation prohibiting local municipalities from filing for bankruptcy unless they first negotiate with creditors using a “neutral evaluation process” or vote to declare a fiscal emergency after a public hearing.
The House Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony on the benefits and pitfalls of proposed legislation that would change bankruptcy venue rules by imposing limitations on where corporations may file for bankruptcy protection. The hearing came in the wake of a statement by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in which he asked how Enron had been able to file its bankruptcy case in Manhattan considering that Enron was based in, and had substantially all of its assets and operations in, Texas.