In JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props. Inc., et al. (In re Transwest Resort Props. Inc.), Case No. 16-16221, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1947 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018), the Ninth Circuit was the first Circuit court to decide a significant split in the lower courts between the “per plan” or “per debtor” impaired accepting class requirement to confirmation.

Foreign financial institutions that trade dollar-denominated securities on the secondary market may not appreciate that they could be forced to defend an action arising from such a transaction in a U.S. court. That is what happened, however, to an Austrian bank that purchased a $10 million interest in a syndicated $1.5 billion term loan on the secondary market. In a recent decision, the bankruptcy court in Motors Liquidation Co. Avoidance Action Trust v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-00504 (MG), 2017 WL 632126 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.

Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York published proposed amendments to its local rules effective December 1, 2016 (the “Proposed Amendments”). Links to the Bankruptcy Court’s notice to the bar with respect to the Proposed Amendments and the full text of the Proposed Amendments are provided below. The Proposed Amendments are currently open for public comment. The comment deadline is November 14, 2016 by 5:00 p.m.

Below is summary of substantive changes effected by the Proposed Amendments which may be of interest to practitioners:

On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of the “actual fraud” exception to an individual debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. In relevant part, Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging “any debt . . . for money, property, [or] services . . . to the extent obtained, by . . .

A lender’s entitlement to a make-whole premium, that is, a prepayment penalty designed to compensate the lender for the loss of interest payments it would have received had the borrower continued to service the debt through the maturity date of the loan, depends principally on the plain language of the bond indenture or credit agreement.  See, e.g.,HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calpine Corp. (In re Calpine Corp.),No. 07 Civ 3088 (GBD), 2010 WL 3835200, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.