In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that an investor in a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") lacked standing to object to the sale of a chapter 11 debtor's real property, despite that the property served as collateral for loans held in trust by the REMIC for the benefit of its investors.

Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a trustee or debtor-in-possession may sell property free and clear of “any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate.” Thus, a buyer can generally acquire assets from a bankruptcy estate without subjecting itself to liability or claims based on the seller’s prior actions. InMorgan Olson, LLC v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), No. 02-16131, 2011 WL 766661 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

In general, substantive consolidation allows for the assets and liabilities of affiliated debtor entities to be consolidated and disbursed as if the assets were held and the liabilities were owed by a single legal entity. Unlike joint administration, which promotes procedural convenience and efficiency without affecting the substantive rights of creditors, substantive consolidation can force creditors of a solvent debtor to share in the debtors’ aggregate asset pool in parity with creditors of less solvent debtors.

Introduction

Judge Walsh released an amended Opinion in the NEC Holdings Corp. case on May 18, 2011. His previous opinion had an incomplete citation of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). It shows just how serious our judges are about the Bankruptcy Code.

In an effort to keep followers of this blog fully apprised of every opinion released by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, I have linked to Judge Walsh’s newly corrected opinion here.

On April 29, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Private Letter Ruling (“PLR”) 201117036 denying recognition of tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) to a nonprofit credit counseling agency (“CCA”) because its primary activity would have been the provision of pre-bankruptcy certification and post-bankruptcy counseling for fees.

Introduction

In a decision that clarifies the rights of secured lenders to rents generated by a mortgaged property under New York law, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York has held that rents which were assigned pre-petition pursuant to an assignment of rents executed in connection with a mortgage loan do not belong to the bankruptcy estate because the Lender took sufficient affirmative actions to perfect its rights over the rents.1

A bankruptcy court in Delaware has ruled that a debtor’s CERCLA claims are “non-core” claims that fall outside the administration of the estate in bankruptcy. NEC Holdings Corp. v. Linde LLC, No. 10-11890 (Bankr. D. Del.

The intersection where IP law meets bankruptcy law poses special challenges to licensees and licensors. Imagine the patent licensor whose debtor licensee intends to assign the licensed patent rights to the licensor's chief competitor. Or consider the trademark licensee whose debtor licensor wants to end the license and sell the trademark to a rival. The resolution of these IP issues may prove vitally important to the parties involved.

Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy