Article L 611-4 to L 611-15 of the French Commerce Code.
Act n° 2005-845 of 26 July 2005, as completed and amended, has created a new out-of-court settlement process known under French law as “Conciliation,” replacing the former amicable settlement or “règlement amiable.”
- 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
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.