Deadlines for the Filing of Proofs of Claims In the Chrysler and Lear Bankruptcies Have Been Set

1. Deadline Relating to Chrysler Bankruptcy:

An opinion issued earlier this year by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. (Bankr. Del., No. 08-11525; January 9, 2009) may end much of the practice of so-called “triangular setoffs” by creditors in bankruptcy cases. The Court in SemCrude found that creditors violate section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code by setting off amounts among multiple debtors, even when exercising contractual assignment rights. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching impact given the dearth of case law on this fairly common contractual provision.

In the recent heyday of real estate and structured finance, the use of “bankruptcy–remote” special purpose entities (SPEs) as borrowers was a fundamental underwriting requirement by lenders in many loans, and a critical factor considered by ratings agencies, to shield lenders and their collateral from the potentially adverse impact of bankruptcy filings by their borrowers’ parents and siblings.

A federal district court in Delaware, applying New York law, has affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion.Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2392882 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2009).

As the automotive industry continues to restructure, whether through self-liquidation or government intervention, suppliers will inevitably be confronted with many of the same issues prevalent 4-5 years ago, including a supplier’s obligation to continue to provide goods post-petition and the supplier’s rights to adequate assurance as a condition to such shipment.

On August 11, a United States bankruptcy judge denied motions to dismiss the Chapter 11 cases of 21 special purpose entity (“SPE”) subsidiaries (the “Subject Debtors”) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”). A final order denying the motions was entered on August 28. The decision raises a number of issues, primarily with respect to the role of independent managers, that are of particular interest to the commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) industry.

Lessons from the GGP Cases

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that an environmental clean-up obligation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, even when the debtor no longer has any internal clean-up operations and would have to contract a third party to provide such services at significant cost.

On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.

After holding a hearing on the topic this past July, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) released a report earlier this week entitled, “The Use of TARP Funds in Support and Reorganization of the Domestic Automotive Industry,” examining how TARP funds have been used to support and reorganize both

In a decision made on August 11, 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed solvent, special purpose entity subsidiaries of a bankrupt parent company, General Growth Properties, Inc., to maintain their Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, raising several important issues related to the use of special purpose entities structured to be "bankruptcy-remote."

GGP Business Model and 2009 Bankruptcy Filings