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.
The British Columbia case of Botham Holdings Ltd. (Trustee of) v. Braydon Investments Ltd. is a reminder that tax and estate plans must take non-tax issues and law into account. It can be extremely dangerous to let the tax tail wag the dog!
Mr. Botham and a family trust were the shareholders of Botham Holdings Ltd. ("Holdings"). In 2004 Holdings was fortunate enough to realize a large capital gain and, as a result, incurred a significant income tax liability.
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.
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 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.
Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense? What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals Protects Payments Made by Enron to Redeem Commercial Paper Prior to Maturity as “Settlement Payments" Under the Bankruptcy Code's Safe Harbor Provisions.