Last month, the United States Court of Appeals in two separate circuits held that liability insurers have standing as parties in interest to appear and be heard in an insured's Chapter 11 case where the insurer might be liable to indemnify the claims of the insured's creditors.

Prior to the 1984 Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code1 (BAFJA), there was a split as to whether a transfer of title to real estate by virtue of a mortgage foreclosure constituted a transfer as defined in §101 of the Bankruptcy Code.2, 3 However, BAFJA made it clear that a “transfer” included “the foreclosure of a debtor’s equity of redemption.”4 This change in definition has a significant impact on the application of both §547 (preference) and §548 (fraudulent transfer).  

The second priority lien held by a junior lien holder is a property interest sufficient to trigger the protection of the automatic stay.In re Three Strokes L.P., 379 B.R. 804 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2008). Inasmuch as a senior lien holder’s foreclosure proceedings would have the effect of extinguishing the debtor’s second lien interest, a court may only lift the stay and permit the foreclosure to proceed upon such senior lien holder’s showing of adequate protection.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that an investor in a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") lacked standing to object to the sale of a chapter 11 debtor's real property, despite that the property served as collateral for loans held in trust by the REMIC for the benefit of its investors.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a completely revamped version of Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to govern disclosure requirements for groups and committees that consist of or represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, as well as lawyers and other entities that represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, acting in concert to advance common interests in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

On December 1, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued an administrative complaint challenging Laboratory Corporation of America’s (“LabCorp”) consummated acquisition of rival Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc. (“Westcliff”). The FTC alleged that the acquisition, which was completed in June, would substantially lessen competition among providers of capitated clinical laboratory testing services to physician groups in Southern California.

Introduction

The South Florida Bankruptcy Court in the Tousa case ordered various creditors that had benefitted from a fraudulent conveyance to disgorge $421,000,000 to the jointly-administered Tousa bankruptcy estates. The court also ordered the avoidance of liens on the assets of various Tousa subsidiary entities who were also debtors in the bankruptcy proceedings. This case may raise increased focus upon the legal theory of fraudulent conveyance, which was the rationale used by the bankruptcy court to order the money returned.

Lenders are often counseled about fraudulent conveyance risks when they engage in financing transactions. It is usual, customary and the norm for steps to be taken to attempt to reduce such risks, including obtaining solvency and fairness opinions and using so-called savings clauses in loan documents. These undertakings and features notwithstanding, when a borrower or guarantor files a chapter 11 petition, often fraudulent conveyance claims are threatened, used as leverage, and settled within the context of a plan of reorganization.

In August 2009, an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme of arrangement to restructure the debt of IMO Car Wash Group, a highly leveraged UK based car wash company. This decision follows the similar use of schemes of arrangements in other restructurings. For example earlier this year an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme in the debt restructuring of McCarthy & Stone. In both of these restructurings, the subordinated creditors were left with no value for their debt claims.