Chapter 11 creditors' committees and debtors continue to challenge lenders' prepayment premiums, commitment fees and post-bankruptcy interest claims in reorganization cases. Nevertheless, courts regularly reject these challenges in well-reasoned decisions. This Alert focuses on two of these recent decisions:In re Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 2017952 (9th Cir.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered its much anticipated decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), holding that a secured creditor may not be denied the right to credit bid at a bankruptcy sale of its collateral that is conducted pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

In a decision further defining when US public policy restricts the relief a court may grant in aid of a foreign restructuring or insolvency proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 case of Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V. v. ACP Master, Ltd. (In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V.), Ch. 15 Case No. 11-33335-HDH-15, 2012 WL 2138112 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2012) refused to a enforce a Mexican restructuring plan that novated and extinguished the guaranty obligations of the Mexican debtor’s non-debtor subsidiary guarantors.

On May 14, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first ruling of this Term concerning a bankruptcy issue. In Hall v. U.S., S. Ct.

The recently decided case of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ____ (2012), puts to rest a conflict among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits as to the right of secured creditors to credit bid at a proposed sale of their collateral under a plan of reorganization that the secured creditor opposes. The practice of credit bidding is codified in the Bankruptcy Code at 11 U.S.C. §363(k) and is the right of a secured creditor to bid the amount of its secured debt at a debtor’s sale of the creditor’s collateral in bankruptcy.

On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a fraudulent transfer ruling in TOUSA, Inc.'s chapter 11 case with wide-ranging implications for the financing community. As discussed herein, this decision weakens protections for secured lenders, especially when extending credit to distressed borrowers.

Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory.  An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured.  Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr

On May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), which affirmed that secured creditors have the right to use their claims to credit bid in auctions of their collateral conducted under bankruptcy reorganization plans. The decision is a victory for secured lenders because these credit bid rights ensure that, in the context of a collateral sale, secured lenders will be able to use their claims to purchase their collateral if they are not being repaid in full.

In the recent case of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), the Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, held that the Bankruptcy Code statutory scheme mandates that secured creditors must be allowed to credit-bid in 363 sales of assets where the sale is incorporated into a plan of reorganization.

The recent bankruptcy case of Hostess has centered on Hostess’s attempts to reject collective bargaining agreements with its unions.  Hostess has emphasized that realigning labor costs is essential to its ability to successfully reorganize.  Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth detailed requirements that a debtor must meet to modify or reject CBAs.  Bankruptcy courts’ ultimate decision to authorize rejection of a CBA frequently turns on a detailed examination of the evidence presented in support of the rejection motion.