CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

In a recent case from the Business Court in Brunswick County, a North Carolina Judge held that Defendants could assert a claim for breach of the duty to negotiate in good faith finding that negotiations for a loan modification and renewal gave rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties had entered into a “binding preliminary agreement.” RREF BB Acquisitions v. MAS Properties, LLC, No. 13 CVS 193, 2015 NCBC 58, 2015 WL 3646992 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 9, 2015).

CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in InRe Reuben Samuel Royal, Case No, 14-07134-DMW (May 2, 2016) recently concluded that the Chapter 13 debtors cannot surrender a vehicle back to the lender after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan even though the vehicle was depreciating or declining in value.

CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

The Fourth Circuit has held that in a case where the rate of interest on a residential mortgage loan had been increased upon default, a Chapter 13 Plan proposing to “cure” default under 11 U.S.C. §1322(b) is an impermissible modification barred by §1322(b)(2).

This update relates to our Alert dated March 17, 2016.

On February 5, 2016, the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released a memorandum (a “Memo”) related to the appropriate tax treatment of individuals or entities that invest in real estate limited partnerships and limited liability companies (“LLCs”) with non-recourse financing.¹ In essence, the Memo determined that, for the taxpayer in question, (i) the existence of a tradi

A creditor recently received a wake-up call from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina in In re Crawford, an opinion issued by the Court on June 8, 2015. In Crawford, the Court granted the debtors’ motion to compel their automobile lienholder to release its lien after the debtors made all payments under their Chapter 13 Plan. In addition, the Court awarded the debtors $7,325.00 in attorneys’ fees for the creditor’s failure to comply with the terms of the confirmed Plan.

Twin rulings by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the first of which was issued in December 2014 and the second issued on June 23rd of this year, have created great uncertainty in the bond market regarding whether, when and to what extent Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (the “TIA”) may now be used by minority bondholders to block out-of-court restructurings, notwithstanding that a particular restructuring is consistent with the provisions of the relevant indenture.

On May 4, 2015, in the case Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, the United States Supreme Court held that debtors in chapter 13 (and presumably chapter 9 and 11 as well) are not entitled as of right to immediately appeal bankruptcy court orders denying confirmation of a proposed plan of reorganization. This ruling, although consistent with a majority of circuit courts of appeal that have considered the issue, reversed governing precedent in several circuit courts—including the Third Circuit, which reviews Delaware bankruptcy court decisions.

The ISDA 2014 Resolution Stay Protocol, published on November 12, 2014, by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA),1 represents a significant shift in the terms of the over-the-counter derivatives market.

On August 26, 2014, in the case In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (“Momentive”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that secured creditors could be “crammed down” in a chapter 11 plan with replacement notes bearing interest at substantially below market rates.