In In re Kohls, 2007 LEXIS 76 (Bankr NDWVa 2007), the debtor filed this adversary proceeding against the Bank to cancel indebtedness and recover damages related to a $34,864 loan that the Bank made to the Debtor on the grounds that the loan was unconscionable at the time it was executed in violation of W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121.

Many bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the general tenet that an obligation secured only by a mortgage on the Debtor’s principal residence is immune from modification or avoidance by the Debtor. Sections 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code protect residential mortgages from being “stripped-down” to the value of the subject real estate or subjecting the terms of the underlying obligation to modification.

What should be the remedy when a bankruptcy court holds that a security interest is avoidable as a preferential transfer, but the value of the security interest is not readily ascertainable? The Ninth Circuit recently addressed this issue in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re: Taylors), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5793 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court held that, since the value of the security interest was not readily ascertainable, the only available remedy is for the bankruptcy court to return the security interest itself, not its value, to the bankruptcy estate.

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a foreign representative of a foreign insolvency proceeding to seek a bankruptcy court’s assistance in an ancillary proceeding upon recognition of the foreign proceeding. Upon recognition, Chapter 15 empowers a bankruptcy court to grant broad relief to a foreign representative to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of its creditors in the United States.

Credit bidding of debt held by a secured creditor at a sale of collateral under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code has become commonplace.1 Does a secured creditor have that same ability in a sale under a chapter 11 plan? Most thought so, but according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not always.

Japanese mobile phone service operator Willcom has filed for bankruptcy protection after failing to reach agreement with creditors on the restructuring of the company’s US $2.3 billion debt load. Filed late last week under Japan’s corporate rehabilitation law, the petition ranks as the largest bankruptcy to affect a Japanese telecom carrier. It is expected to wipe out the investment of the Carlyle Group, the U.S.-based private equity firm that, in 2004, paid US $330 million for a 60% controlling stake in what was then the mobile phone unit of KDDI Corp.

Overcoming months of delay, regional local exchange carrier Fairpoint Communications filed a reorganization plan with a New York bankruptcy court that would reduce the carrier’s debt load by two-thirds and give secured creditors an ownership stake of 92% in the post-bankruptcy entity. At the same time, Fairpoint reached settlements with the states of New Hampshire and Vermont that address commitments to service quality and to the provision of broadband services in those states.

In a matter of first impression arising in the largest corporate bankruptcy in history, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York invalidated a common contractual provision shifting payment priority upon the default of a swap counterparty (“Flip Clause”) in a credit-linked debt structure.1

Two decisions (one only weeks ago) have held that the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 encompasses “informal committees” of bondholders and that such committees must comply with the extensive disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.1 In a recent decision, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court came out the other way, ruling that such a committee was not a “committee representing more than one creditor” and, consequently, is not subject to Rule 2019.2 In so doing, Judge Sontchi considered but declined to follow the two decisions addressing the same issue:

Elaborating on its Resorts decision of ten years ago concerning payments to shareholders in a public leveraged buyout,1 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled in In re Plassein Int’l, Corp.2 that the “settlement payment” exemption of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code also insulates selling shareholders in a private LBO from fraudulent transfer liability.