On December 29, 2011, the FDIC filed suit against seven former directors of the Bank of Asheville in the Western District of North Carolina seeking to recover over $6.8 million in losses suffered by the bank prior to receivership.  All of the directors named as defendants were members of the bank’s Loan Committee, the committee responsible “for the amplification, implementation and administration of the loan policy” and “management of the lending function”.  The Complaint cites 30 specific commercial real estate and business loans approved by the defendants between June 26, 2007 a

On September 13, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved a final rule requiring certain financial institutions to prepare a plan for their dismantling in the event of material financial distress or failure.

In a recent decision1 involving TerreStar Networks, Inc., and its affiliates (“TerreStar” or the “Debtors”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Debtors’ noteholders held a valid lien on the economic value of a license granted to TerreStar by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and that nothing in Article 9 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (the “NYUCC”) or Section 552 of the Bankruptcy Code invalidated that lien.

The United States Bankruptcy Court recently denied confirmation of a bankruptcy plan even though it found that the plan's global settlement was "fair and reasonable."1 Why? Because the plan's releases were too broad and "unreasonable" for many of the constituents. The case provides a pointed lesson to creditors and debtors alike — pay attention to the releases; overdoing it may sink the whole ship.

In today’s turbulent economic climate, it is vital for creditors and debtors to understand the precise boundaries of their rights and duties when an enterprise becomes insolvent. Directors, officers and managers must acknowledge those to whom they owe fiduciary duties and fulfill those duties at the risk of personal liability, while creditors evaluate their potential remedies against misbehaving insiders to collect on defaulted obligations.

On August 4, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division extended equitable principles previously applied in mortgage foreclosure cases to how far an unsecured judgment creditor could go to satisfy its lien against a debtor, deciding to follow a line of cases standing for the principal that “even in the absence of express statutory authorization, a court has inherent equitable authority to allow a fair market value credit in order to prevent a double recovery by a creditor against a debtor.” Moreover, in the case, MMU of New York, Inc. v.

Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is intended to allow financially stressed debtors to restructure their debt obligations through a plan of reorganization. Typically, a Chapter 11 plan places different types of claims in different classes and, subject to various requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, allows the debtor to pay only portions of the claims (and in certain circumstances not to pay certain claims at all). Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor the flexibility to structure a plan to defer the payment of certain claims.

In a recent decision in the Chapter 11 case of Project Orange Associates, LLC1, the court confronted an important issue that often arises in bankruptcy cases: whether the use of conflicts counsel is sufficient to permit court approval under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s choice for general bankruptcy counsel that also represents an important creditor of the debtor in unrelated matters. Here, the conflict involved the debtor's largest unsecured creditor and an essential supplier.

In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York distinguished excusable neglect in filing a claim before the expiration of a clear bar date. In a written opinion issued on May 20, 2010 in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., et. al, Case No. 08-13555 (JMP), Judge Peck denied seven motions for leave to file late claims finding none satisfied the Second Circuit’s strict standard to find excusable neglect.

The recent case of In re Tousa, Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc., v. Citicorp North America, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-1435-JKO (Bankr. S.D. Fla., October 13, 2009)) has attracted considerable attention – and dread – in the banking and legal communities.