On April 15, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued additional guidance (Guidance) with respect to the 2013 resolution plan submissions of the U.S. and foreign banking organizations that filed their initial resolution plans on July 1, 2012 (First-Round Filers).
Firms offering comprehensive financial services scored a significant victory on April 9, 2013, when Judge Robert Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Capmark Financial Group Inc.’s (“Capmark”) insider preference action against four lender affiliates of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”), which arose out of Capmark’s 2009 bankruptcy.1 Davis Polk represented the Goldman Sachs lender affiliates and advanced the arguments adopted by Judge Sweet.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender “lost its possessory lien when it turned the Debtor’s account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection.” In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., _____ B.R. 2013 _____, 2013WL 1188041, *5 (8th Cir. B.A.P. March 25, 2013) (emphasis added).
Recently, the Fifth Circuit decided a case regarding the appropriate interest rate to be charged when a secured creditor's claim is "crammed down," pursuant to section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Code), 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532. Unfortunately, the decision does little to clarify the confusion precipitated by the Supreme Court's 2004 decision of Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), and perhaps even adds to it.
As you know, the last two years have seen a somewhat improved, but by no means robust, business climate. At the same time, structural shifts in the law firm business model have been both highly publicized and memorably demonstrated.
The Bankruptcy Court’s conversion of Section 11 of the Illinois Conveyance Act from a safe harbor provision to a mandatory checklist that must be satisfied to survive avoidance challenges has been reversed (Crane Bankruptcy – D Ct decision). The Central District of Illinois holds compliance with the statute is permissive. While the statute provides that mortgages containing the enumerated terms, including the interest rate and matu
Recently, on the eve of closing a large mortgage loan for a regional mall intended for a single asset securitization, it was determined that there was an extremely remote risk that the mortgage might not be foreclosable due to a peculiarity of the improvements on the real property and local foreclosure practices.
Those who practice in the secured transactions arena, and our clients, understand the importance of filing financing statements and continuing them on a regular basis. Failure to maintain perfection of a security interest can be disastrous to a secured lender in the case of a bankruptcy case involving its borrower. Financing statements can, however, sometimes be mistakenly terminated. Two recent cases illustrate the issues which may arise when a financing statement is inadvertently terminated.
In a ruling on February 28, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois reversed the February 29, 2012 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois allowing a bankruptcy trustee to avoid an Illinois mortgage as to unsecured creditors for lack of “constructive notice” because the mortgage did not expressly state the maturity date of and interest rate on the underlying debt (In Re Crane, Case 12-2146, U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. IL, February 28, 2013).
A recent decision in the protracted litigation by lenders of Extended Stay to recover under guaranties executed by owners of Extended Stay highlights the need for clear and unambiguous drafting in intercreditor agreements.