The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now weighed in on the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions. In Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., Docket Nos. 09–5122, 09–5142, 2011 WL 2536101 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals faced an issue of first impression—whether Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which shields certain payments from avoidance actions in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer’s payment to redeem its commercial paper made before maturity.
On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”1 where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.
On March 10, 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued a memorandum decision in the case of Harrelson v. DSS, Inc. (No. 14-mc-03675), declining to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court and holding that the existence of an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver in that arbitration agreement did not require substantial consideration of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Facts
Recent case law reminds practitioners and lenders to pay careful attention when drafting prepayment premium provisions in debt instruments or risk having the premiums disallowed in a borrower’s bankruptcy case.
A recent New York court decision has cleared the way for lenders to seek recovery against non-recourse carve-out, or “bad boy,” guarantors during a pending mortgage foreclosure action if a borrower files for bankruptcy. In so doing, the court answered a question that, surprisingly, was thus far apparently unanswered in a reported decision in New York: whether New York’s “one action rule” under RPAPL § 1301 bars a lender from obtaining a money judgment against a “bad boy” guarantor for the debt if a mortgage borrower files for bankruptcy while a foreclosure action is underway.
The two most recent decisions of the Supreme Court involving federal taxes illustrate how a conservative approach to statutory interpretation tends to prevail, but only with great effort, and changing constituencies.
Hall v. United States
On Friday, the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions closed Bramble Savings Bank, headquartered in Milford, Ohio, and appointed the FDIC as receiver for the bank. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Foundation Bank, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, to assume all of the deposits of Bramble Savings Bank.
On Friday, the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services closed Home Valley Bank, headquartered in Cave Junction, Oregon, and appointed the FDIC as receiver for the bank.
On Friday, the New York State Banking Department closed USA Bank, headquartered in Port Chester, New York, and the FDIC was appointed receiver.