Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.

In the latest decision arising out of long-running disputes over confirmation of the Tribune Company’s Chapter 11 plan, the Third Circuit issued important new guidance concerning the enforceability of subordination agreements in cramdown plans, holding (1) that subordination agreements “need not be strictly enforced” in such plans, and (2) that the relevant comparison, for determining unfair discrimination, need not always be a comparison between the recovery of the preferred class and the dissenting class, but may sometimes entail a comparison between the dissenting class’s desired and act

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

In Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Keach (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), No. 19-1894 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the First Circuit held that when determining the value of legal claims as collateral, the party with the burden of proof must establish the likely validity of the claim and the likelihood of recovery — demonstrating possible damages alone does not suffice.

What Happened?

Background

The question is not if but how deeply the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic will disrupt businesses and impact future operations. That answer differs based upon each company’s industry, access to cash and other capital, debt structure, ability to manage expenses, lost revenues, and operational interruption. Certain industries, such as airlines and airline service companies, hotels, restaurants, sports and entertainment, media, and retailers, among others, are suffering immediate adverse effects. Our healthcare resources are being stretched thin.

In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.

General Legal Background

Introduction

In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.

The Bottom Line

For retail companies contemplating filing for chapter 11 protection, not only is the time of year of the filing important, but also the expected time frame the case will last. This is particularly important given that the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code modified Section 365(d)(4) to provide that Debtors must assume or reject unexpired leases of nonresidential property within 120 days of the filing.

On May 4, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important decision regarding creditor standing to  maintain a derivative action on behalf of an insolvent corporation. In Quadrant Structured Products Company v. Vertin et al., C.A. No.