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.
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 Supreme Court of the United States, in the chapter 11 cases of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, and RadLAX Gateway Deck, LLC (the “RadLAX Cases”)1 held by a vote of 8-02 that a chapter 11 plan cannot be confirmed if the plan (i) is rejected by a class of secured claims, (ii) provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of liens securing such claims, and (iii) deprives the holders of such claims of the right to credit bid at the sale of collateral.
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.
Preliminary Remarks
On March 1, 2012, the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG) came into effect. The main aim of the ESUG is to improve the prospects of an early and successful restructuring of distressed companies, to involve creditors in the selection process of the (preliminary) insolvency administrator and to improve the reliability and predictability of particular insolvency plan proceedings. The main changes of the ESUG to the current German insolvency law (InsO) comprise:
On 29 February 2012, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment concerning the treatment of client money in the long-running administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”).
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.
On October 31, 2011, the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, Bankruptcy Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, issued an opinion denying confirmation of two competing proposed plans of reorganization in the chapter 11 cases of In re Tribune Company, et al.