Although Section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code explicitly allows payment of post-petition interest to holders of oversecured claims (i.e., where the value of the collateral exceeds the amount of the claim), the Bankruptcy Code does not describe how to calculate it. No bright line rules exist dictating how to determine oversecured status, the timing of the valuation, and the rate and type of interest to be paid to oversecured creditors. Computation of post-petition interest is a frequent topic of debate among the courts.
Both the Loan Syndications and Trading Association, Inc. (the “LSTA”) and the Loan Market Association (the “LMA”) publish the forms of documentation used by sophisticated financial entities involved in the trading of large corporate syndicated loans in the secondary trading market. The LSTA based in New York was founded in 1995. The LMA based in London was formed in 1996. Both the LSTA and LMA share the common aim of assisting in developing best practices and standard documentation to facilitate the growth and liquidity of efficient trading of syndicated corporate loans.
Last week at the American Bankruptcy Institute meeting in Washington, D.C., our firm co-sponsored and participated in a mini-conference on bankruptcies that involve FCC-regulated companies. This was an opportunity to spend a few hours contemplating issues that practicing attorneys rarely get a chance to reflect upon in the midst of heated, multi-party bankruptcy proceedings.
Despite the absence of any provision in the Bankruptcy Code expressly authorizing the recharacterization of a debt claim to an equity interest, it generally is well-established that recharacterization is within the broad powers afforded a bankruptcy court under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and is necessary for the proper application of the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.1 In a recharacterization analysis, a
bankruptcy court ignores the labels of a transaction, examines the facts, and determines whether a
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the question of how much protection is required for a secured creditor to be adequately protected. Banker’s Bank of Kansas, N.A. v. Bluejay Properties, LLC (In re Bluejay Properties, LLC), Bankr. No. 12-22680 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2014)(unpublished).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Seventh Circuit”) recently adopted a broad reading of the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) § 546(e), which protects from avoidance “settlement payments” and transfers made in connection with a “securities contract,” among other transfers.1 In FCStone, the Seventh Circuit reversed the United States District Court for t
Recently, two courts of appeal dismissed as moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) appeals of orders authorizing the sale of assets. The courts’ analysis focused on whether granting the appellant’s relief from the lower courts’ order would affect the asset sale. Thus the trend in the appellate courts is that only appeals that will not affect the sale itself (such as a dispute over the distribution of sale proceeds) are not subject to being dismissed as moot.
Numerous bankruptcy trustees have attempted to claw back from colleges and universities — and even from private elementary and secondary schools — the tuition payments that parents made on behalf of their children, when the parents subsequently filed for bankruptcy.
According to a recent report issued by the American Bankruptcy Institute, there was a 24 percent drop in business bankruptcy filings in the United States last year, resulting in the fewest filings since 2006. The larger corporate filings in 2013 were not the typical “mega” filings of years past. Unlike Lehman, Chrysler, Tribune, MF Global and others, the chapter 11 “mega-cases” filed in 2013 were smaller and less well known in the general business community. Among the more prominent were Cengage Learning, Excel Maritime, and Exide Technologies.
A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).