I. Introduction

When entering into a reinsurance agreement, a ceding company and a reinsurer may also enter into a related reinsurance trust agreement  

In an October 13, 2009 decision involving bankrupt homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) avoided as fraudulent transfers certain liens given and debt obligations incurred by several of TOUSA’s subsidiaries to a syndicate of lenders who provided $500 million of new loans to TOUSA. In addition, the Court ordered those lenders, and others that received the proceeds of the new loans, to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to the bankrupt estates of these subsidiaries.

The recent Scottish Court Opinion on Scottish Lion’s proposed solvent scheme of arrangement,1 in which it was held that to sanction a solvent scheme there must be a “problem requiring a solution” and, in effect, unanimous creditor approval, was followed by a short hearing on Wednesday 14th October in which Lord Glennie said that he would dismiss the petition for the scheme.

On September 15, 2009, in an order read from the bench, the Honorable James M. Peck, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork, and the presiding judge in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and other associated Lehman Brothers United States entities, held a key provision of the standard ISDA Master Agreement unenforceable in a bankruptcy context.

On August 11, 2009, in a closely monitored dispute in the bankruptcy proceeding of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York rejected motions filed by several mortgage lenders to dismiss the bankruptcy filings of certain special purpose entity subsidiaries (SPEs) of GGP. In re General Growth Properties, Inc., et al., No. 09-11977, slip op. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2009).

Pending motions in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in General Growth Properties’ (GGP) bankruptcy case (Case No. 09-11977) are expected to shed new light on how courts may treat real estate special-purpose entities in bankruptcy and may also have implications for the efficacy of bankruptcy-remote SPE structures used in asset-backed securitization transactions.

A recent court decision, Thermal Supply, Inc. v. Big Sky Beef,LLC, 195 P.3d 1227 (Mont. 2008) underscores the importance of filing Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) continuation statements to prevent the lapse of financing statements even during bankruptcy or litigation.

We sent to you earlier this week an Alert on "Chrysler Bankruptcy Filing and Preliminary Impact on Suppliers." As we promised, below is an update based upon our review of the case and observations at the hearings.

Essential Supplier Motion

The Court approved treatment of essential suppliers on a temporary basis. Here is a summary of the Interim Order:

Chrysler's bankruptcy filing, which occurred on April 30, has generated considerable activity already. Baker Hostetler has been monitoring closely the Chrysler activity for our supplier clients. We attended the hearing on the first day filings, which were generally ministerial in nature. The court approved joint administration, maintenance of cash management/business forms, enforcement of automatic stay, payment of wages, and honoring of all warranties.

The Sixth Circuit recently held that section 2-702(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which permits good faith purchasers to defeat a valid right to reclaim, does not allow a secured creditor to defeat that right.[1] The Sixth Circuit found that the security interest held by a DIP lender could not be used to defeat the right of a reclaiming creditor under the UCC or pre-BAPCPA section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. This decision may impact the way bankruptcy courts consider reclamation claims under revised section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.