On Oct. 27, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that even inadvertent mistakes in UCC filings count – the burden rests on the filing party to detect errors, and not on affected parties who come across them in a search. This ruling upsets the 2013 decision of the bankruptcy court and will ultimately determine the character of a $1.5 billion security interest in the General Motors (GM) bankruptcy.

Background

The US Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") recently upheld the validity of a commercial lease provision by which a debtor/tenant waived its rights to seek relief from forfeiture (i.e., termination) of the lease under California law. As a result, the debtor/tenant had no right in the bankruptcy case to assume the lease. In re Art and Architecture Books of the 21st Century, Case No. 2:13-bk-14135-RK (September 18, 2014).

Fourteen former MF Global executives, including Jon Corzine, the former chairman and chief executive officer, are entitled to access most of a US $200 million directors and officers liability insurance policy purchased by MF Global Holdings prior to the firm filing for bankruptcy in October 2011, under the decision of a US bankruptcy court in NYC last week. The executives had previously made a motion to access the insurance.

As bankruptcy practitioners will recall, the Supreme Court held in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2620 (2011) that bankruptcy courts, as non-Article III courts, “lack[] the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim,” even though Congress had classified these types of proceedings as core – and thus authorized federal bankruptcy courts to hear and decide them.

The US District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District Court") recently affirmed a bankruptcy court decision that prohibited a transferee of a secured lender's interest in a loan from voting on a debtor's plan of reorganization on the grounds that such transferee, a distressed debt investor, was not an Eligible Assignee under the applicable loan agreement.Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC v. NB Distressed Debt Investment Fund Ltd., et al., No. 13-5503 (W.D. Wash. March 6, 2014) (In re Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC).

Background

In 2014, the Chilean Legislature enacted legislation that substantially overhauls its prior insolvency law, liberalizing that law as it pertains to business insolvency cases commenced in Chile. As explained below, this new law incorporates a number of provisions that permit the reorganization of financially troubled businesses.

A lingering misperception among American businesspersons and some commercial lawyers is that it is a fool’s errand to commence an insolvency case seeking reorganization in a European nation because those national laws prescribe liquidation rather than rehabilitation. These business leaders often dismiss out-of-hand insolvency relief on the continent for a troubled European subsidiary and elect to wind up the company’s affairs outside the judicial system.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently limited the ability of a secured creditor to credit bid for substantially all of the debtors’ assets because (i) the credit bid would chill, or even freeze, the bidding process, (ii) the proposed expedited private sale pursuant to a credit bid would be inconsistent with notions of fairness in the bankruptcy process, and (iii) the amount of the secured claim was uncertain. In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., Case No. 13-13087 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014).

Section 1111(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) is one of its least understood provisions, primarily due to its somewhat opaque language. This Code subsection is divided into two distinct but related parts. The first part, section 1111(b)(1), provides that a nonrecourse secured claim in a Chapter 11 case will be treated “as if such holder had recourse against the debtor on account of such claim, whether or not such holder has such recourse” subject to two exceptions.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued the first appellate decision holding that, in actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the officers and directors of failed banking institutions can assert affirmative defenses relating to the FDIC’s post-receivership conduct.