In a decision to be hailed by buyers of distressed debt and bankruptcy claims on the secondary loan market, on Oct. 15, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in a fact-specific ruling, held that an assignment of claim does not violate New York’s champerty statute (forbidding trading in litigation claims) if the purpose of the assignment is to collect damages by means of a lawsuit for losses on a debt instrument in which the assignee holds a pre-existing proprietary interest. Trust for the Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.

A Florida bankruptcy court, on Oct. 13, 2009, issued a 182-page decision after a 13-day trial, among other things, avoiding on fraudulent transfer grounds (a) secured subsidiary guarantees of $500 million and (b) $420 million pre-bankruptcy payments. In re Tousa, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-10928; Adv. P. 08-1435 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009). The decision is on appeal to the district court.  

Relevance  

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order on Sept. 17, 2009, granting a motion filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) to compel Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to continue to make payments to LBSF under an ISDA Master Agreement.

On April 16, 2009 and April 22, 2009, General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) and certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), including many subsidiaries structured as special purpose entities (the “SPE Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”).

As discussed in our previous update, the Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the “Act”) provides for various options to facilitate business recovery. One such option is the court-supervised sale of (all or part of) the debtor’s business.

The introduction of the court-supervised sale is an important development. Such sales are likely to become a popular option under the Act for two reasons.

The Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the "Act") creates a variety of flexible tools to promote business recovery. This update focuses on the new judicial (i.e., court-supervised) reorganisation proceedings (as opposed to out-of-court workouts and court-supervised sales of the business).

Simplified access to proceedings

The Act of January 31, 2009 on the continuity of companies (Loi relative à la continuité des enterprises/Wet betreffende de continuïteit van de ondernemingen, the "Act") entered into force on April 1, 2009.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on May 5, 2009, that a group of secured lenders were fully secured and “entitled to a full recovery” from the debtor despite the bankruptcy court’s improper valuation of the collateral (improved airport terminal space) securing the lenders’ underlying $60 million loan. In re United Airlines, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9648 (7th Cir. 5/5/09) (Easterbrook, Ch. J.). The lower courts had valued the lenders’ collateral at $35 million, leaving them with a $25 million unsecured claim.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed the collateral agent for senior lenders to credit bid for the debtors’ assets even though all of the senior lenders had not authorized the bid. One of the senior lenders had objected to the group’s acquisition of the debtors’ assets by the credit bid. In re GWLS Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 453110 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2009) (Walsh, J.).

The Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the “Act”) creates a variety of flexible tools to promote business recovery and turnaround. In addition to an updated judicial reorganization procedure (i.e., a reorganization overseen by the court), the Act also introduces several interesting options for out-of-court workouts and preventive measures to promote business recovery.

Out-of-court agreements