In February the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held in Crane v.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board announced the process for receiving and evaluating the initial resolution plans--also known as living wills--from the largest banking organizations operating in the United States. The agencies also gave a timetable for release of the public portion of such plans, which are due on July 2.
In 2009, the owners and management of The Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the nation's largest daily circulation newspapers, proposed a bankruptcy plan that attacked secured creditors' rights to bid their loans. When the District Court and the Third Circuit both approved the tactic, the plan gained national attention.
The secured lender industry experienced a collective sigh of relief on May 29 after the Supreme Court ruled in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank that credit bidding remains a viable option to protect collateral in a cramdown bankruptcy plan. Expressly inscribed in Sections 363(k) and 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, credit bidding has long been understood as a fairly uncontroversial right; until recently.
The chapter 11 case of mortgage lender and servicer Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”) is fascinating on a number of levels. Its parent company, Ally Financial, Inc.
On June 22nd, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and the Treasury Department issued a final rule on the calculation of the maximum obligation limitation ("MOL"), as specified in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"). The MOL limits the aggregate amount of outstanding obligations that the FDIC may issue or incur in connection with the orderly liquidation of a covered financial company. The new rule is effective July 23, 2012.
Borrowers who file a bankruptcy petition are always looking for creative new challenges to claims asserted by their bank creditors. In recent years, debtors have argued that a bank’s issuance of an Internal Revenue Code form 1099-C “Cancellation of Debt” has the effect of waiving the bank’s claims against the borrower, and should preclude the bank from having an allowed claim in the bankruptcy case. Fortunately, some recent court opinions state that a bank’s issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute a waiver, and the bank remains entitled to enforce its claim in a subsequent bank
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.
The Bottom Line:
In a unanimous decision (with Justice Kennedy not participating), the Supreme Court issued a decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 2012 WL 1912197 (U.S. May 29, 2012), (“RadLAX”) in which it held that section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a debtor to “cram down” a plan of reorganization that provides for the sale of encumbered assets free and clear of liens at auction without permitting the lienholder to credit bid at such auction.