We recently published an article entitled“Good news for financial institutions seeking to challenge Protective Certificates” which outlined the positive steps taken the High Court to prevent a Debtor from receiving the full benefit of a protective certificate (“PC”) where it would cause irreparable loss to a lending institution.
When the debt owed by a debtor is cancelled or forgiven, the debtor generally has cancellation of indebtedness (COD) income. COD income is generally includable in gross income, but may be excluded under section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code in some instances. A statutory exclusion exists for COD income that arises in a title 11 bankruptcy case or when the taxpayer is insolvent. Final regulations were issued recently that apply these exclusions to a grantor trust or a disregarded entity (DRE).
In recent years, constructively fraudulent transfer claims asserted in bankruptcy cases, especially those arising from LBOs and similar shareholder transactions, have hit a major road block.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion that addresses, among other issues, the question of whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code preempts certain fraudulent transfer avoidance actions brought under state law. In re Physiotherapy Holdings Inc., No. 15-51238 (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2016).
The High Court recently considered Protective Certificates (PC) in the context of Personal Insolvency Arrangements (PIA) in the recent case of Clones Credit Union –v- McManus. A Protective Certificate can be obtained by debtors to prevent enforcement action threatened by creditors. The PC allows such protection for a period of 70 days to facilitate an informal arrangement with creditors.
The issue of whether gathering agreements are subject to rejection in bankruptcy as executory contracts and whether certain provisions of those agreements run with the land and survive rejection will impact ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of producers, as well as renegotiations of existing gathering agreements.
Both landlords and tenants are well served to begin discussing exclusives early in the lease negotiations.
In re RML Dev., Inc., 528 B.R. 150 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2014) –
A mortgagee sought to modify a sale order to (1) modify the bid procedures and (2) confirm that it had a right to credit bid.
In re Walker, 526 B.R. 187 (E.D. La. 2015) –
The bankruptcy court (1) denied a mortgage lender’s request to file a late amendment to a proof of claim that had been filed on its behalf by the debtor and (2) confirmed the debtor’s proposed plan over the mortgagee’s objection that the plan payments were not sufficient to cure the actual arrearage. The lender appealed to the district court.
A chapter 7 trustee sought return of a “good faith” deposit made prior to bankruptcy in connection with a proposed purchase of real estate. The bankruptcy court found against the trustee, as did the district court. So the trustee appealed to the 6th Circuit.