In a decision further defining when US public policy restricts the relief a court may grant in aid of a foreign restructuring or insolvency proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 case of Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V. v. ACP Master, Ltd. (In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V.), Ch. 15 Case No. 11-33335-HDH-15, 2012 WL 2138112 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2012) refused to a enforce a Mexican restructuring plan that novated and extinguished the guaranty obligations of the Mexican debtor’s non-debtor subsidiary guarantors.

Whether a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid at a sale under a chapter 11 plan has been the subject of conflicting decisions rendered by the Third, Fifth and Seventh Circuits.¹ The United States Supreme Court has resolved these inconsistent rulings with its decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al., v. Amalgamated Bank, ² which affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s holding that a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid in a sale under a chapter 11 plan.

On May 29, 2012 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a plan of reorganization may not be confirmed over the objection of a secured creditor if the plan provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of the creditor’s lien, but does not permit the creditor to credit bid at the sale. The ruling resolved a conflict between a decision from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied confirmation of such a plan, and decisions from the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal, which approved such plans.

Section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code creates a worldwide estate comprising all of the legal or equitable interests of the debtor, “wherever located,” held by the debtor as of the filing date.¹ The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, in turn, applies “to all entities” and protects the debtor’s property and the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by barring “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate . . .

In a ruling on February 29, 2012, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois allowed a bankruptcy trustee to avoid an Illinois mortgage as to other creditors of the estate because the mortgage failed to expressly state the maturity date of and interest rate on the underlying debt (In Re Crane, Case 11-90592, U.S. Dist Ct, C.D. IL, February 29, 2012).

Earlier this month, we reported to you on the bipartisan legislation introduced in the Michigan Legislature known as the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act (the “Act”).  

The Act has been approved overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Michigan Legislature and will be presented to the Governor’s office for signature. It is expected that the legislation will be signed into law within the next several business days.  

According to a U.S. Department of Justice press release, the federal government and 49 state attorneys general have reached a $25 billion settlement agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers to settle claims over alleged mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. If reports are correct, the agreement, which Attorney General Holder called the “the largest joint federal-state settlement ever obtained,” compels the mortgage servicers to adhere to extensive new servicing standards and provides considerable financial relief for homeowners.

On January 19, 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In re River East Plaza, LLC , 2012 WL 169760 (7th Cir. January 19, 2012), affirming an order by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granting an undersecured creditor's motion to lift the automatic stay and dismissing the debtor's single asset real case. The debtor attempted to defeat the mortgagee's motion to lift the automatic stay by proposing a "cramdown" Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

A promissory note is a one-way undertaking. The maker promises to pay to the payee. There is nothing promised by the payee. The whole point of having a promissory note is to have a document that clearly states an obligation to pay. By contrast, most contracts are bilateral, meaning that each party promises to do something. And those promises are usually mutually dependent: if one party breaches, then the other may be excused from further performance. But that is not the case with a promissory note.

Voicing concern about the Rural Utilities Service’s (RUS) oversight of federal loans for rural broadband network projects, six members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to RUS Administrator and former FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein to request information on a $267 million loan granted by the RUS to Open Range Communications, a regional broadband service provider that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month. The RUS funds approved for Open Range during the administration of President George W.