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.

Introduction

The credit crisis has led to many opportunities for financial and strategic buyers to purchase all or part of a business or assets from financially troubled companies at significantly discounted prices. In such deals, buyers run the risk that the transaction may be set aside on the basis of voidable preference rules (the so-called 'actio pauliana').

On September 23 2009 the Amsterdam District Court granted the holder of a pledge over the shares in the capital of Schoeller Arca Systems Services BV authorization for foreclosure on the pledge by way of a private sale. Foreclosure on a pledge over Dutch shares is rare. The decision introduces the possibility for a secured lender either to wipe out subordinated mezzanine debt or to implement a loan-to-own strategy.

Facts

In 2007 Schoeller Arca Systems, its parent and subsidiaries (known as the SAS Group) entered into:

Introduction

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.

When doing business with a Luxembourg company in financial distress, the counterpart should be aware that certain transactions are at risk.

Doing business with a bankrupt Luxembourg company

A bankrupt Luxembourg company is automatically deprived from the administration of its assets. All transactions must be entered into by the receiver in bankruptcy acting in the name and on behalf of the bankrupt company.