A New York bankruptcy court, on Dec. 12, 2013, issued a 166-page decision after a 34-day trial, concluding that the spin-off of a highly profitable energy business constituted a fraudulent transfer intended to shield the business from massive environmental liabilities, and awarding damages of up to approximately $14.5 billion.[1]Tronox Inc. et al. v. Kerr McGee et al. (In re Tronox et al.) (Bankruptcy S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013) (J.
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”).
Summary
On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case: Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 52. The Court looked at the position where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) was issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings in England (eg administration). How does the relevant obligation rank in the order of priority of payment?
Snapshot
The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment today in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.
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).
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.