The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Court) recently granted a motion to dismiss a mezzanine borrower’s chapter 11 bankruptcy petition at the outset of the debtor’s case.¹ In In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC, The Court found that the debtor’s petition had been filed in bad faith because, among other things, a junior mezzanine lender had directed the debtor to file the petition with the intent of hindering a senior mezzanine lender’s foreclosure efforts and without any valid reorganization purpose.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear another bankruptcy case and this one could have a profound effect on a lender’s bidding rights when its collateral is up for sale.  RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, cert. granted Dec.

The United States Supreme Court accepted the petition for certiorari on the Seventh Circuit decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank on December 12, 2011 and arguments will likely be heard by the Court in April 2012. This case presents the Supreme Court with the important issue of whether secured lenders are entitled to submit a credit bid, a bid not requiring actual transfer of payment, at the sale of their collateral in the Bankruptcy Court.

Investors have agreed to settle securities claims against more than 30 underwriters who underwrote in excess of $31 billion in debt and equity offerings for Lehman Brothers, the collapse of which was a key chapter in the global financial crisis.  The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that the underwriters, which included Bank of America and units of Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, assisted Lehman Brothers in making misstatements about its finances prior to its implosion and eventual bankruptcy filing.  The proposed settlement still requires district court app

Grossman v. Lothian Oil Incorporated, 650 F.3d 539 (5th Cir., 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

In a case of first impression in the Fifth Circuit, the court recharacterized a claim of a non-insider, declining to create a per se rule that recharacterization could only apply to insiders.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Northern Capital, Inc. v. The Stockton National Bank, et al. (In re Brooke Corporation), 2011 WL 4543484 (Bankr. D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 8, 2011 issued an opinion on a motion of the Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) trustee (“Trustee”) to confirm his determination that certain claims relating to settled on delivery-versus-payment “to be announced” (“TBA”) contracts do not qualify as customer claims against the LBI estate and therefore are not entitled to Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) coverage.

Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. et al. (In re Whittle Development Inc.) 2011 WL 3268398 (Bankr. N.D. Tex., July 27, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) liquidation proceeding confirming the LBI trustee’s determination that certain claims relating to TBA contracts do not qualify as customer claims against LBI’s estate.

On Friday, November 25, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) and the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) issued joint proposed rules to implement the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Act”) described below.  Comments must be received by January 24, 2012.