A secured lender's "mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy repossession] does not violate" the automatic stay provision [362(a) (3)] of the Bankruptcy Code, held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, 4 ( Jan. 14, 2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit's affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved "a split" in the Circuits. Id. at 2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.

An undersecured mortgagee’s “release of [its entire underlying claim] was value obtained ‘in exchange for’ the [pre-bankruptcy] sale of the [debtor’s] property,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Dec. 6, 2016. In re Expert South Tulsa LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21704, at *11 (10th Cir. Dec. 6, 2016). The Tenth Circuit flatly rejected the debtor’s attempt “to set aside as a fraudulent transfer its own sale of real estate that was encumbered by a mortgage far exceeding the sale price.” Id. at *1.

Glitnir hf. (“Glitnir”) has announced that as of the end of day on Sept. 11, 2015 (“Transfer Cut-Off Time”), it will no longer be processing Claim Transfer Request Forms (“CTRFs”) or issuing any Notices of Successful Transfers (“NOSTs”). Parties to unsettled claims trades that require assignment of title must submit their CTRFs to Glitnir’s transfer agent, Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, or Epiq Systems Limited (“Epiq”) before the end of day on Friday, Sept. 11, 2015.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”), entered an order on Aug.

On February 28, 2017, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) in the Money Center of America bankruptcy – Bankr. D. Del., Case 14-10603. The Opinion is available here. This Opinion decided two separate, but similar, motions to dismiss filed by 2 entities owned by federally recognized Indian Tribes and sovereign nations (the “Tribes”).

Introduction

The proliferation of limited recourse financings popularized in the commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) loan market through the financial innovation of loan securitization may be in jeopardy following the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Wells Fargo, N.A. vs. Cherryland Mall Limited Partnership.¹   If the Michigan decision is widely followed, an array of unanticipated consequences may arise that could have profound effects on the debt capital markets generally and on single purpose entity (SPE) borrowers in particular.

Introduction

Introduction

Earlier this month, the Liquidating Trust in the Advanta Corp. bankruptcy proceeding began filing preference complaints in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.  Advanta and certain affiliates ("Advanta") filed for bankruptcy in Delaware in November of 2009.  As stated in the Liquidating Trust's complaints, Advanta was at one time one of the largest issuers of "business purpose credit cards" in the United States. 

Background

Summary

In a 28 page decision signed April 29, 2011, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that in order for a transfer to be considered “substantially contemporaneous” as used by Bankruptcy Code §547(c), it does not necessarily need to comply with the timing requirements of §547(e). Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background