The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on August 5 that a secured lender’s disputed “lien on [the debtor’s] principal asset survived . . . confirmation of [the debtor’s] Chapter 11 . . . reorganization plan” because the lender had not participated in the bankruptcy case.S. White Transportation, Inc. v. Acceptance Loan Co., 2013 WL 3983343, *1,*3 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013). Had the lender participated in the case, the court reasoned, its lien might have been avoided.Id., at *1, citingIn re Ahern Enterprises, Inc., 507 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir.

Over the next few years, a significant number of distressed bank-holding companies will face the end of interestdeferral periods and the prospect of payment defaults on certain debt instruments and trust-preferred securities. The looming obligations to repay deferred interest may escalate the need for financial restructuring at these holding companies and may create attractive opportunities for investors to recapitalize or acquire their subsidiary banks, including in a bankruptcy scenario.

Fall-out from the subprime and Alt-A mortgage crisis continued recently with court approval of a multi-million dollar settlement of a lawsuit filed against former top officers of what had been one of the country’s leading subprime lenders before its bankruptcy in January 2008.

Georgia court rejects “replacement lien” as adequate protection.

A federal district court in Georgia recently ruled that a financial institution creditor in a Chapter 11 case had separate, distinct security interests in both the rental property on which it had accepted a mortgage and that property’s rental income by virtue of an assignment of rents from the debtor.

• FCCPA: lender may offset judgment for violations of FCCPA against amounts owing on pre-petition bankruptcy claim - In re Claudia Acosta-Garriga, No. 8:12-cv-00731-SDM (M.D. Fla.

In re Castleton Plaza, LP,___F.3d__, 2013 WL 537269 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

On June 10th, the FDIC published the final rule establishing the criteria for determining if a company is predominantly engaged in "activities that are financial in nature or incidental thereto" for purposes of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and therefore subject to the FDIC's orderly liquidation authority.

Prudential Insurance Company of America v. WestLB AG, 961 N.Y.S. 2d 360 (2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Miller, 2013 WL 425342 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the secured lender’s credit bid, which equaled the total debt owed on two properties but exceeded the value of the only foreclosed property involved in the sheriff’s sale, extinguished the entire debt. The court affirmed the order to lift the automatic stay only to require the lender to dismiss the second foreclosure action, release the promissory note and mortgage, and turn over the second property to the borrower free and clear.

Good news for lenders. Judge Carey of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware enforced a make-whole premium equal to 37 percent of the outstanding principal balance on a loan. He determined that, under New York state law, the calculation was not "plainly disproportionate" to the lender’s possible loss and was negotiated at arm’s length between sophisticated parties. In addition, Judge Carey held that a make-whole claim was not equivalent to "unmatured interest," which is unauthorized under Section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code, but instead was a claim for liquidated damages.