The English Court of Appeal decision in Caterpillar v John Holt & Company, and its analysis of “retention of title” and “no set-off” clauses, will be of interest to commodity traders, compliance officers and legal counsel in industries dealing with energy and natural resources internationally.
On January 17, 2014, Chief Judge Kevin Gross of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision limiting the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid at a bankruptcy sale. In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc., Case No. 13-13087-KG, 2014 WL 210593 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014). Fisker raises significant issues for lenders who are interested in selling their secured debt and for parties who buy secured debt with the goal of using the debt to acquire the borrower’s assets through a credit bid.
According to a recent report issued by the American Bankruptcy Institute, there was a 24 percent drop in business bankruptcy filings in the United States last year, resulting in the fewest filings since 2006. The larger corporate filings in 2013 were not the typical “mega” filings of years past. Unlike Lehman, Chrysler, Tribune, MF Global and others, the chapter 11 “mega-cases” filed in 2013 were smaller and less well known in the general business community. Among the more prominent were Cengage Learning, Excel Maritime, and Exide Technologies.
A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).
On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage, they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage. Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.
Northern District of Oklahoma Chief Bankruptcy Judge Terrence L. Michael’s introduction to the opinion in In re Harrison (2013 WL 6859303) serves as a good introduction to this post:
After a plan of reorganization is confirmed by the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents often seek to consummate the confirmed plan as soon as possible by implementing a series of restructuring transactions. Meanwhile, and objecting party has the statutory right to appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation rulings. Absent the entry of a court-ordered stay of implementation, however, the plan proponents may "win the race" and implement the transactions before the appellate court can rule on any appeals.
One of the ironic issues for failing banks has been the fact that banks that they have had to continue to deal with their borrowers and depositors in the ordinary course of business even though they are already in the queue for resolution by the FDIC. So for example, loans continue to get renewed and documents executed. What happens if you renew a loan shortly before the bank fails, do you have some sort of defense to enforcement of the loan when the successor bank or the FDIC makes demand on you?
In his judgment handed down on 18 October1 Popplewell J took the opportunity to clarify the law
regarding payments by a company to third parties which may or may not have been suspicious and
where the company may or may not have been insolvent at the time. He looked long and hard at the
state of knowledge necessary to ground liability, at defences available to directors and whether the
court could relieve liability for innocent breaches.
On September 12, 2013, in the American Airlines case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (a) authorizing the debtor to use proceeds of postpetition financing to repay prepetition debt without payment of amake-whole amount, and (b) denying a creditor’s request for relief fromthe automatic stay.
Background Facts