Case Summary
This case presents a common scenario and dynamic that a party involved with a distressed bank holding company may have seen in the last several years.
Many indentures contain “make-whole provisions,” which protect a noteholder’s right to receive bargained-for interest payments by requiring compensation for lost interest when accrued principal and interest are paid early. Make-whole provisions permit a borrower to redeem or repay notes before maturity, but require the borrower to make a payment that is calculated to compensate noteholders for a loss of expected interest payments.
Crumbs Bake Shop Inc. shut down in July and filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey court that same month. The bankruptcy court ordered an auction sale, and a purchaser has come forward to buy all of the company’s assets.
In an opinion filed on July 3, 2014, in the case of In re Lower Bucks Hospital, et al., Case No. 10-10239 (ELF), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy Court), which denied approval of third-party releases benefitting The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity as indenture trustee (BNYM, or the Trustee).
On May 28, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed an order from the bankruptcy court in Dishi & Sons v. Bay Condos LLC, et al.1, approving a sale of the Debtor’s assets, but found that the Debtor’s commercial tenant was entitled to remain in possession of the premises for the remainder of the lease at the specified rent.
A class of consumers suing the bankrupt Kangadis Food Inc. over its allegedly misleading olive oil purity claims is now suing the owners of the company in a separate class action aimed at holding them accountable.
Gupta’s $13.9 Million SEC Insider Trading Penalty Affirmed
The case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), No. 12- 1200, was easily one of the most closely watched bankruptcy cases in many years. Last week’s decision in that case, however, was far less dramatic than some practitioners feared it might be. The Supreme Court answered two important questions regarding the power of bankruptcy courts that it left open three years ago in Stern v. Marshall.
In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall. Turning decades of bankruptcy practice on its head, the Supreme Court held that, even though bankruptcy courts are statutorily authorized to enter final judgments in “core” matters, Article III of the Constitution prohibits them from finally adjudicating certain core matters, such as a debtor’s state law counterclaim against a creditor (so-called “Stern claims”).
The staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection recently sent a letter to the court handling ConnectEdu’s bankruptcy proceedings and sale of assets, which may include their customer’s personal information.