On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.

On August 2, 2016, the IRS issued proposed regulations taking aim at valuation discounts with respect to closely-held interests for gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer tax purposes. If adopted, even with clarifying language, the proposed regulations will impact certain estate planning strategies.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

Alternatives to Bankruptcy from Bankruptcy Law Specialist Christy Myatt

The general notion behind receiverships is to preserve property pending the outcome of a case, or the foreclosure of real property or such other time as the Court deems a Receiver is not required.

The Receiver is usually an unrelated third party or attorney familiar with process.

I. State Court Receiverships

A. Purpose of Receivership

A Receiver plays an important part in three common situations:

CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

In a recent case from the Business Court in Brunswick County, a North Carolina Judge held that Defendants could assert a claim for breach of the duty to negotiate in good faith finding that negotiations for a loan modification and renewal gave rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties had entered into a “binding preliminary agreement.” RREF BB Acquisitions v. MAS Properties, LLC, No. 13 CVS 193, 2015 NCBC 58, 2015 WL 3646992 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 9, 2015).

CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in InRe Reuben Samuel Royal, Case No, 14-07134-DMW (May 2, 2016) recently concluded that the Chapter 13 debtors cannot surrender a vehicle back to the lender after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan even though the vehicle was depreciating or declining in value.

CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

The Fourth Circuit has held that in a case where the rate of interest on a residential mortgage loan had been increased upon default, a Chapter 13 Plan proposing to “cure” default under 11 U.S.C. §1322(b) is an impermissible modification barred by §1322(b)(2).

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

A creditor recently received a wake-up call from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina in In re Crawford, an opinion issued by the Court on June 8, 2015. In Crawford, the Court granted the debtors’ motion to compel their automobile lienholder to release its lien after the debtors made all payments under their Chapter 13 Plan. In addition, the Court awarded the debtors $7,325.00 in attorneys’ fees for the creditor’s failure to comply with the terms of the confirmed Plan.

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background