In its decision published on March 13, 2013 (dated February 21, 2013 – IX ZR 32/12), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH or Bundesgerichtshof) made it clear that it will uphold its prevailing case law regarding two questions at hand even though the relevant legal provisions relating to equitable subordination have been moved from the corporate law regime to the insolvency law regime with the 2008 Act to Modernize the Law on Private Limited Companies and Combat Abuses (MoMiG or Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Mißbräuchen).

On March 1, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C. et al, (Inre Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C.)¹ (“Texas Grand Prairie”) affirming an order of the bankruptcy court confirming a debtor’s plan of reorganization over the objection the secured creditor that argued that the interest rate proposed by the plan to be paid to the secured creditor was too low in violation of 11 U.S.C. §1129(b).

Recently, on the eve of closing a large mortgage loan for a regional mall intended for a single asset securitization, it was determined that there was an extremely remote risk that the mortgage might not be foreclosable due to a peculiarity of the improvements on the real property and local foreclosure practices.

On February 26, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Western Real Estate Equities, L.L.C. v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P.¹ (“Camp Bowie”). The bankruptcy court confirmed a debtor’s plan of reorganization over the objection of the secured creditor that argued the impaired accepting class of the cramdown plan was “artificially” impaired and that the plan was not proposed in good faith.

Numerous public-private partnerships have been formed in recent years as a device for funding infrastructure projects such as ports, toll roads and other transportation projects, sewer systems and parking garages. State and local governments, which have been strapped for cash to spend on infrastructure projects, have granted private entities the right to operate various infrastructure projects in exchange for a significant up-front payment and/or periodic payments.

On February 14, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in In re Castleton Plaza, LP,¹ became the first court of appeals to consider whether a competitive auction is required when a debtor’s plan of reorganization provides an “insider” that does not hold an equity interest in the debtor with an exclusive option to purchase equity in exchange for new value since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 203 N. LaSalle² more than a decade ago.

On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit BAP”) rendered its opinion in Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance v. OPK Biotech, LLC (In re PBBPC, Inc.), BAP No. MB 12-042 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Jan.

On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York decided that American Airlines (American) was not obligated to pay certain make-whole premiums set forth in some of its loan indentures at the time that American refinanced the applicable loans. A makewhole premium typically allows a lender to be compensated for having to reinvest in a lower interestrate environment when a borrower prepays its debt before the original maturity date.

What do the Pocahontas Parkway (Richmond, Va., vicinity), South Bay Expressway (San Diego, Calif.) and Indiana Toll Road have in common?

All are toll road projects that are currently undergoing or have been through a restructuring – or even bankruptcy. While traditional restructuring tools are certainly available in restructuring toll road deals, toll road restructurings also present unique considerations that warrant special attention.

The U.K. Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the joined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v A E Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46. (24 October 2012)

Key points: