- In re TOUSA, Inc., 408 B.R. 913 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009). Prepetition lenders could not assert third-party claims against the debtors for breach of contract based on loan document representation that debtor borrowers, on a consolidated basis, would be solvent after the financing transaction because such claims did not depend on the outcome of the fraudulent transfer claims of the creditors, which asserted that individual debtor subsidiaries were insolvent.
- In re Metaldyne Corp., 409 B.R. 671 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).
After more than a decade of rising real estate values, the tide has turned against commercial and development real estate, prompting major builders and developers to commence Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) in 2005, many Chapter 11 cases that revolve around real estate will fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of single asset real estate (SARE) cases and are thus subject to special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.1 As a result, it is now time to think about SARE.
Introduction
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced that Residential Credit Solutions was the winning bidder in a pilot sale of receivership assets conducted to test the funding mechanism for the Legacy Loans Program. The FDIC, as a receiver of Franklin Bank, SSB, owns a portfolio of residential mortgage loans with an unpaid principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, which the FDIC will convey to a limited liability company. Residential Credit Solutions will pay $64,215,000 in cash for a 50% stake in the limited liability company using 6-to-1 leverage.
On August 11, the Honorable Allan L. Gropper issued an opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of several property-specific special purpose subsidiaries (SPE Debtors), including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc.
On August 11, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases filed by debtors, including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The movants, including special servicers of the CMBS issued by GGP, based their dismissal motions primarily on a claim that the debtor’s cases were filed in bad faith.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed to amend its Bankruptcy Rules, 17 CFR Part 190, to establish cleared over-the-counter derivatives as a separate account class for the purpose of calculating “net equity” and “allowed net equity” for each customer in the event of the bankruptcy of a futures commission merchant.
The court overseeing the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and various subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), has entered an order establishing deadlines and procedures for filing claims against the Debtors. In terms of procedural requirements, the order places unusual burdens on parties whose claims are based on derivative contracts and guarantees.
On May 26, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) filed a motion requesting the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to establish August 24 as the deadline for filing proofs of claim against LBHI and its affiliates, and to establish a procedure for such filing, including a required form to be completed online relating to derivatives claims, and a new proof of claim form specific to this case.
On April 16, General Growth Properties, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (“GGP”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. GGP operates a national network of approximately 200 shopping centers. To the surprise of many, most of GGP’s property-specific SPE subsidiaries (“SPE Debtors”) also filed for bankruptcy.