On May 28, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed an order from the bankruptcy court in Dishi & Sons v. Bay Condos LLC, et al.¹, approving a sale of the Debtor’s assets, but found that the Debtor’s commercial tenant was entitled to remain in possession of the premises for the remainder of the lease at the specified rent.

In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall. Turning decades of bankruptcy practice on its head, the Supreme Court held that, even though bankruptcy courts are statutorily authorized to enter final judgments in “core” matters, Article III of the Constitution prohibits them from finally adjudicating certain core matters, such as a debtor’s state law counterclaim against a creditor (so-called “Stern claims”).

Often times indenture trustees seek to sit on creditors committees in furtherance of their fiduciary duties to holders. Obviously, the professional fees and expenses can be paid as a first priority pursuant to a charging lien as provided for under the indenture documents. The payment of such fees and expenses becomes an issue, however, when there are no plan distributions to holders or the plan distributions are illiquid or non-cash.

11/13/13: “Goal for CFPB chief: Calming conflict on car loans”

On July 15, 2013, AgFeed USA, LLC, AgFeed Industries, Inc. and certain of their affiliates (collectively, the Debtors or AgFeed) filed their voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking to sell their assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code through an open auction process with approximately $79 million as a floor price set forth under an asset purchase agreement between AgFeed and The Maschhoffs, LLC (the Buyer).

The former customers of MF Global, Inc. (MFGI) can expect another round of distributions, resulting in a recovery for 4d customers of approximately 94–96 percent and for 30.7 customers of approximately 60–84 percent.

Given the commonality in today’s marketplace of complex corporate capital structures that employ multiple layers of secured debt, existing and potential creditors need to be increasingly aware of the rights and limitations provided for in subordination or intercreditor agreements. These agreements are often entered into between the existing lender or debt holder and a new lender. They often restrict the actions of subordinated lenders upon the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy protection, including denying their right to vote on the debtor’s plan of reorganization.

In a recent decision¹, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found the standard for sealing under § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code was not met and declined to seal a settlement agreement, despite requests from the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") and the counterparties to the settlement agreement to do so. Confidentiality was an essential condition of the settlement. In addition, the United States trustee supported the motion to seal, arguing that the standard for sealing had been met.

Congress enacted the ordinary course of business defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to protect recurring, customary transactions in order to encourage the continuation of business with and the extension of credit to a financially distressed customer.