On November 17, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and "make-whole" redemption provisions, holding that Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, "EFIH") were unable to avoid paying lenders approximately $800 million in expected interest by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy.

Imagine that while a bankruptcy case is pending, the debtor-in-possession or bankruptcy trustee files a state law claim against one of the estate's creditors. Presumably, if the debtor wins its state law claim, that recovery augments the bankruptcy estate and increases the amount available to pay the debtor's creditors.[1] The creditor, seeking to avoid litigating the action in the debtor's home state court, timely removes the lawsuit to federal court as permitted under 28 U.S.C.

This week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its highly-anticipated ruling in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp. (“Marblegate”). At issue in Marblegate was whether Education Management Corp. (“EDMC”) violated the Trust Indenture Act when it implemented a restructuring that impaired the rights of Marblegate Asset Management, LLC (“MAM”). The Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision in favor of MAM, and held that EDMC’s restructuring did not violate the TIA.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 17, 2017)

On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.

If your bank is in the process of a merger or has agreed to buy or sell a portfolio of mortgage loans, notices must be provided to the borrowers before and after the transaction closes. Care must be taken to determine the notices required and how they are worded to avoid violating potentially conflicting laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that a mortgagee did not violate the discharge injunction in 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) by sending IRS 1099-A forms to borrowers after their discharge, agreeing that the IRS forms were not objectively coercive attempts to collect a debt.

A copy of the opinion in Bates v. CitiMortgage, Inc. is available at: Link to Opinion.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2017)

In a win for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a debtor who sought to cure a pre-petition default of its loan through its Chapter 11 plan must pay the default rate of interest set forth in the note. In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc., the debtor proposed to pay the outstanding amount due under the note at the pre-default interest rate.

Attributable to Amanda Remus, spokeswoman for Irving H. Picard, SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) and his counsel:

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York today approved the SIPA Trustee's request for an allocation of approximately $342 million in recoveries to the BLMIS Customer Fund and has authorized the SIPA Trustee to proceed with the eighth pro rata interim distribution from the Customer Fund to BLMIS customers with allowed claims.