On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc. (In re MBS Mgmt. Servs., Inc.), Case No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. 2012), holding that a real estate management company’s electricity supply contract qualified as a “forward contract”, payments on account of which are protected from avoidance as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions.

The Second Circuit recently issued its opinion in the DBSD N.A., Inc. bankruptcy case addressing several bankruptcy issues that have received wide-spread reporting, including the validity of the "gifting” doctrine and the standing of an "out of the money" creditor to object to confirmation of a chapter 11 plan. A lesser publicized issue addressed in the decision, but one that should signal a warning to claim purchaser’s of bankrupt companies, was the designation of a vote of DISH Network Inc. on DBSD's plan under section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In reaction to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985), in which the court held that a licensee of patents, copyrights and trademarks loses its rights if the trustee or debtor in possession rejects a license under the Bankruptcy Code under which the debtor was the licensor, Congress enacted section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 365(n)).

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board announced the process for receiving and evaluating the initial resolution plans--also known as living wills--from the largest banking organizations operating in the United States. The agencies also gave a timetable for release of the public portion of such plans, which are due on July 2.

On May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), which affirmed that secured creditors have the right to use their claims to credit bid in auctions of their collateral conducted under bankruptcy reorganization plans. The decision is a victory for secured lenders because these credit bid rights ensure that, in the context of a collateral sale, secured lenders will be able to use their claims to purchase their collateral if they are not being repaid in full.

On May 29, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, resolved a high-profile circuit split regarding the right of secured creditors to credit bid in an asset sale under a chapter 11 plan. In RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank,¹ the Court held that a debtor cannot deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid as part of a chapter 11 plan providing for the sale of assets free and clear of the secured creditor’s liens on those assets.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently found that a debtor’s transfer of property owned by a corporation in which the debtor allegedly held a 50% interest did not automatically constitute a transfer of assets of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. After the debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the Chapter 7 trustee filed an adversary complaint alleging that the debtor purposefully had executed a post-petition mortgage lien on certain real property owned by a corporation of which the debtor was a 50% owner.

Litigation arising from the Tousa, Inc. fraudulent transfer claims has been working its way through the legal system since 2009, and the recent decision issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (the “11th Circuit”), has significant ramifications for any party holding debt, whether that debt is secured, unsecured, original issue or purchased on the secondary market. Regardless of the type of debt, or its source, Tousa illustrates that lenders must heighten their due diligence efforts to protect themselves from the risk of a lawsuit alleging fraudulent transfer liability.

On March 20, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed a rule (Proposed Rule), with request for comments, that implements section 210(c)(16) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act) , which permits the FDIC, as receiver for a financial company whose failure would pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States (a covered financial company), to enforce contracts of subsidiaries or affiliates of the covered financial company despite contract clauses that purport to terminate, accelerate, or provide

The Delaware Chancery Court recently found that exigent circumstances necessitated the appointment of a receiver for an insolvent company under section 291 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL). The insolvent company at issue had $1.9 million in tax debt and was at risk of losing a favorable settlement opportunity with the IRS due to an impasse between voting and non-voting shareholders.