Fulltext Search

Trial begins today in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Detroit over whether the city of Detroit is even eligible for the Chapter 9 bankrupcty protection it sought earlier this year.  The major point of contention is whether Detroit may, under the Michigan constitution, seek bankrupcty in a way that would reduce pension payments (as it would reduce payment to all its creditors).

As the controversy around the possible sale of the Detroit Institute of Arts’ collectioncontinues to swirl, Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr has given some of his most pointed comments to date about his expectations.

A make-whole premium is a lump-sum payment that becomes due under a financing agreement when repayment occurs before the stated maturity date, thereby depriving the lender of all future interest payments bargained for under the agreement. Make-whole provisions, ubiquitous in the bond market, are becoming more prevalent in commercial loan transactions, including in the distressed context. That trend is spurred by favorable court rulings for lenders enforcing make-whole premiums when the borrower files for bankruptcy protection.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) recently followed the emerging trend of affording the safe harbor protections of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) to intermediary financial institutions acting as only conduits in otherwise voidable transactions.

An important qualifier to the discussion about deaccessioning and the Detroit Institute of Arts is that although DIA is a subdivision of the bankruptcy debtor (Detroit), that debtor is not any old commercial entity.  Rather, Detroit is a municipality, and municipal and state debtors are governed by slightly different rules than private parties.

The recentfiling by the City of Detroit for bankruptcy—the largest such municipal filing in history—has brought with it an unexpected art law twist.  Namely: to what extent can, or should the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts be used to satisfy the city’s creditors.  As one might expect, the differences between what the city can do, what it should do

Unsecured creditors in chapter 11 cases face the prospect of two financial blows: the possibility of not receiving full payment of their claims and the cost of attorney's fees for defending their interests. But these creditors may be able to take comfort in a small but growing trend -- the ability to have the attorney's fees paid from the debtor's assets under the debtor's chapter 11 plan. This outcome occurs in only a small number of cases, and unsecured creditors would be advised to not assume their attorney's fees will be reimbursed by the debtor.

The "WARN Act" (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) requires that larger employers provide 60 days' notice in advance of plant closings or other mass layoffs. This has long been in conflict with bankruptcy practice. A recent Fifth Circuit decision, In re Flexible Flyer Liquidating Trust, 2013 WL 586823, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2013), confirms that exceptions to the WARN Act apply in bankruptcy and interprets these exceptions more broadly than previous decisions.