In re American Roads LLC, et al., 496 B.R. 727 (S.D.N.Y. 2013
CASE SUMMARY
An ad hoc committee of bondholders who executed an agreement with a monoline insurer securing claims under an insured unitranche containing a “no action” clause, bargained away their right to appear in the debtor’s bankruptcy case and, therefore, lacked standing to object to the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re Qimonda Richmond, LLC, 467 B.R. 318 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Tronox Incorporated, et al., 2011 WL 1815149 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Introduction
Inspired by the American “prepackaged restructuring plan,” the French authorities have yet again decided to reform French insolvency law, with the creation of an “accelerated financial safeguard procedure” (procédure de Sauvegarde Financière Accélérée). This procedure is available to debtors who start conciliation proceedings after 1 March 2011.
In re Buttermilk Towne Center, LLC, No. 10-8036, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4563 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Dec. 23, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re TOUSA, Inc., Nos. 10-60017-CIV/Gold, 10- 61478, 10-62032, 10-62035, and 10-62037 Slip Op. (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Cooper v Centar Investments LTD, et al. (In re Trigem America Corporation), 431 B.R. 855 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Parent company guarantees and performance bonds are typically used in the construction and engineering industries to provide a developer with some security in the event that the contractor breaches the building or engineering contract or, in some circumstances, upon the contractor's insolvency.
In the current economic climate, contractor default is, unfortunately, even more prevalent in the construction and engineering industries, and so the issues surrounding parent company guarantees and performance bonds are very much in focus for developers.
An opinion issued earlier this year by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in the largest municipal bankruptcy since Orange County has become final.
The BAP decision in the City of Vallejo, California, case became final when the appellant city labor unions voluntarily withdrew their further appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal to the BAP had followed an eight-day bankruptcy court trial over whether Vallejo was eligible to be a chapter 9 debtor. On June 26, 2009, the BAP issued an opinion affirming the bankruptcy court's determination that Vallejo was eligible.
The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has held that a finance company did not have a perfected security interest in equipment lease payment pools assigned to it because neither the assignee, nor the assignor with which it had contracted, filed the appropriate UCC financing statements.