In the fifth opinion involving the repo liquidation saga of HomeBanc, the Third Circuit addressed several crucial issues involving the liquidation and valuation of repo collateral in bankruptcy. In re HomeBanc Mortg. Corp., 2019 WL 7161215 (3d Cir. Dec. 24, 2019).
Background
Introduction
1. Nature of process
Chapter 11 used to effect operational restructuring, deleverage balance sheet, and/or commence asset sale of the business as a going concern
Insolvency Act process primarily used to effect a pre-packaged sale of the business or assets effected by administrators (i.e. external qualified appointees).
I. DEFINITIONS
"Banking Law" means the Banking Law of Turkey No. 5411.
"BRSA" means the Banking Regulatory and Supervisory Authority of Turkey.
"Creditors" means Turkish banks, financial leasing companies, factoring companies and financing companies and Foreign Credit Institutions and International Organizations.
Recent Development
The Financial Restructuring Framework Agreement ("PreviousFA") drafted by the Banks Association of Turkey was revised to be divided into two separate framework agreements for large scale (the "Large Scale FA") and small-scale (the "Small Scale FA") debtors.
What's New?
A New Jersey District Court recently addressed several issues in connection with the appointment of a future claims representative (“FCR”). In light of the recent increase in mass-tort bankruptcy cases, exploring these issues is timely.
Background
Background
Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.
A recent decision out of the District Court for the Southern District of New York may bring greater certainty to the interpretation of what constitutes a “financial institution” in connection with the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code. The decision, In re Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69081 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
Merit Management
Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky et al., is a New York case which gets to the heart of the enforceability of classic single-purpose entity restrictions in commercial real estate lending. At issue is how far a third-party may go to cause a violation of a borrower’s SPE covenants, and whether those covenants are enforceable at all.
A Defaulted Construction Loan and Frustrated Attempts to Foreclose: