On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, a case that tested the extent of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court judges to decide fraudulent transfer and certain other claims against non-debtors. Ropes & Gray LLP represented the petitioner in obtaining certiorari and in the Supreme Court proceedings.

LONDON - The Court of Appeal in the case of Re Game Station¹ has held that rent payable by a tenant that enters administration is a priority expense of the administration while the leasehold premises are being used for the benefit of the administration.

Does a lender have a duty to act in good faith when negotiating with a  borrower during a commercial loan modification?  In an order issued recently by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, in In re: Burcam Capital II, LLC, the court denied a lender’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claims against the lender.  The Borrower alleged that the lender’s failure to modify the terms of the loan constituted a breach of the lender’s obligation to deal with the borrower in good faith, as well as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.&nbs

The Supreme Court has boosted the rescue culture by ruling that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the UK Pensions Regulator after commencement of insolvency proceedings are not an expense of the administration and, instead, rank on a par with unsecured claims. This decision in the Nortel and Lehman administrations will be reassuring to creditors and insolvency and restructuring practitioners.

Key Points

In an important decision for private equity sponsors and other insiders who advance loans to their businesses, on April 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Fitness Holdings International confirmed that bankruptcy courts may recharacterize debt as equity, but held that recharacterization is determined by state law. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit joins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in deferring to state law on this issue and explicitly rejects the various federal law based tests that have been adopted by a majority of U.S.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently upheld a secured lender’s claim for a $23.5 million “makewhole” premium (the “Makewhole Claim”) over the heavily litigated objection raised by the unsecured creditors’ committee in In re School Specialty, Inc., No. 13-10125 (KJC) (Apr. 22, 2013).

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides debtors with a number of tools to restructure comprehensively their debts and other liabilities as well as immediate protection from secured and unsecured creditors.

In its recent decision in Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Spectrum Scan, LLC (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit overturned lower court decisions that were casting serious doubt on a lender’s ability to realize value from its security interest in the proceeds of FCC broadcast licenses.  This alert will briefly describe the law governing security interests in FCC broadcast licenses, as well as the issues created by the lower courts – and ultimately resolved by the appeals court - in the Tracy case.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of In Re: McCormick that a recorded North Carolina deed of trust indexed in a county’s grantor/grantee index may nevertheless be avoided by a trustee in bankruptcy if such county has elected a Parcel Identification Number (“PIN”) indexing system and the recorded deed of trust does not appear in such PIN index.  This alert briefly describes the PIN system in North Carolina and the McCormick decision’s impact on the need for PINs in deeds of trust recorded in North Carolina counties that have adopted the PIN

In a decision described as the first of its kind, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ruled that claims based on soft dollar credits issued by Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) to numerous investment advisers were not entitled to the special protections afforded to “customer claims” under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA).