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.
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.
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.
According to a recent Delaware bankruptcy court decision, avoidance and disallowance risk travel with a distressed claim. This decision highlights the importance of diligence and the benefits provided by purchasing distressed debt on “distressed” documents.
The debt of a troubled company is trading in the secondary market at a significant discount because the company is highly levered and is at risk of default.
T he LBIE Client Money Judgment on the appeal from the Court of Appeal has been eagerly awaited by creditors and secondary claims trading market participants in order to give clarity to the funds available for the client money pool and to determine which clients will have the benefit of those funds.
The decision has implications for creditors of MF Global UK Limited and all clients of UK financial firms.
BACKGROUND
Greece is proceeding with the largest sovereign debt restructuring in history after its bondholders accepted a significant debt reduction in the face of mounting evidence that a Greek default was inevitable without such relief. In a related market development garnering only slightly less attention than the debt restructuring itself, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
Bankruptcy Rule changes, effective December 1, 2011, require mortgage holders and servicers to include additional documentation supporting proofs of claim filed in individual debtor cases. Mortgage holders and servicers must follow these rules or face sanctions and potential loss of the right to present the omitted documentation as evidence in subsequent proceedings.
On January 19, 2012, the Seventh Circuit in In re River East Plaza, LLC, (No. 11-3263), held in favor of a secured lender further strengthening the rights of secured creditors in bankruptcy cases.
T he recent—and unexpected—rejection by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the modified plan of reorganization of Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WaMu”)2 on the ground of a “colorable claim” of insider trading has raised questions about the standards of conduct for members of ad hoc creditors committees during corporate reorganizations.3 In WaMu, Judge Mary F.
On September 6, 2011, a bankruptcy court approved an agreement between bankrupt bookseller Borders Group, Inc. (“Borders”) and Next Jump, Inc., (“Next Jump”) regarding Next Jump’s alleged trademark infringement and unauthorized use of Borders’ customer information. Next Jump stipulated that it will not communicate with persons on Borders’ customer list, and that it would remove the Borders name and marks from websites that Next Jump owns or operates.