In Sun Capital Partners III, L.P. et al. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 12-2312, 2013 WL 3814985 (1st Cir. July 24, 2013), the First Circuit held that a private equity fund could be liable for its bankrupt portfolio company’s withdrawal liability imposed under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) on the basis of the private equity fund constituting a “trade or business” under ERISA’s controlled group rules.

In a recent unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court made it more difficult to avoid a bankruptcy debtor discharging a debt tied to "defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity." [1] In Bullock, the Court stated that a defalcation, or misappropriation of funds, requires a

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.

Secured creditors need to be aware of recent bankruptcy rulings that affect their rights and interests. These rulings have tested the boundaries of key concepts affecting the ability to "cramdown" and involuntarily restructure a secured creditor’s rights and the valuation of collateral. Secured creditors must therefore be mindful of these developments and risks in guiding their negotiating and litigation strategy against a cramdown threat.

“Safe harbors” in the Bankruptcy Code designed to minimize “systemic risk”—disruption in the securities and commodities markets that could otherwise be caused by a counterparty’s bankruptcy filing—have been the focus of a considerable amount of judicial scrutiny in recent years. The latest contribution to this growing body of sometimes controversial jurisprudence was recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Issue

On July 18, the City of Detroit filed for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, making Detroit the largest municipality to file for chapter 9 relief in United States history. Detroit is seeking to restructure approximately $18 billion in accrued obligations, consisting of approximately $11.9 billion in unsecured obligations and $6.4 billion in secured obligations. Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the City offered to pay unsecured creditors a pro rata distribution of $2 billion in principal amount of interest-only, limited recourse participation notes.

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.

The City of Detroit filed for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 18, 2013,1 becoming the largest municipality to ever file for bankruptcy. Detroit’s bankruptcy filing presents numerous complicated issues, which will be resolved over the course of the case.