The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision earlier this year that is likely to have a significant impact on bankruptcy sales of property. In In re New 118th, Inc., 398 B.R. 791 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009), the court held that certain tax exemptions available pursuant to section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in connection with transfers of property that occur "under a plan," apply to pre-confirmation sales that close after confirmation and are necessary to the consummation of the debtor's plan.

A fundamental component in the commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") market is the lender's reliance that the loan is made to a "bankruptcy remote" special purpose entity ("SPE"). The loan documents and operating agreements relating to an SPE typically require that the SPE maintain separate existence and contain restrictions that limit the SPE's debt and ensure separateness.

In a decision with potentially broad implications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently determined that payments made to former shareholders of a privately held company in a leveraged buyout transaction are protected as "settlement payments" pursuant to section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The US government’s foray into restructuring the ailing US automotive industry has been widely reported in the media and represents the most substantial federal intervention in the private business sector since the Great Depression. In Chrysler’s case, the government took the unprecedented step of orchestrating a “surgical” Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing with the primary goal of utilizing the provisions of Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code to sell substantially all of Chrysler’s assets to “New Chrysler” in less than 30 days.

The October 15, 2009 decision of the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re Pillowtex opens the door for creditors in the Third Circuit to increase their "new value" preference defense under the "subsequent advance" approach.In re Pillowtex, No. 03-12339 (Bankr. D. Del. filed Oct. 15, 2009).

A trustee’s power to avoid preference payments is circumscribed by the statutory defenses set forth in section 547(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. The "subsequent new value" defense set forth in section 547(c)(4) has three well-established elements:

The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.  

AUTOMOTIVE

Accuride Corp., an Evansville, Ind.-based maker of medium- and heavy-duty steel and aluminum wheels may file for bankruptcy under a prearranged agreement with bondholders and senior lenders.  

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved debtor Magna Entertainment Corp.’s proposed bidding procedures for the sale of Maryland’s Pimlico Race Course, home to the Preakness Stakes, and Laurel Park race course over the objections from former owners and state authorities. The former owners, together with Baltimore’s mayor and city council and the state of Maryland, objected to the expedited time frame, arguing that the debtor failed to provide parties in interest with sufficient time to respond to the proposed procedures.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has granted debtors Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s request to pursue a plan for developer SunCal Co., which is subject to a pending bankruptcy case in the Central District of California. Prior to LBHI’s bankruptcy filing, the debtors had provided SunCal with funding in an amount of approximately $2.2 billion. In January, SunCal commenced an adversary proceeding in its own bankruptcy case seeking to have LBHI’s claims subordinated. SunCal opposes LBHI’s filing a plan and has put forth its own plan in the case.

On October 2, the official committee of unsecured creditors in the chapter 11 cases of Lyondell Chemical Co. filed a motion for the appointment of an examiner in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The committee asserts that an examiner is needed to investigate allegations of a conflicted rights offering sponsor, the debtors’ refusal to refinance the debtor-in-possession credit facility, and the debtors’ refusal to formulate a plan of reorganization with an appropriate reserve for unsecured creditors pending resolution of the committee’s adversary proceeding.

It seems safe to assume that no lender would extend high-dollar credit without first having a deep knowledge of the party accepting the funds. Certainly, such deep knowledge would include the precise legal name of that borrower. Nevertheless, recent cases continue to demonstrate the prevalence of filing UCC-1 financing statements that may be deemed “seriously misleading” as to the name of the debtor and, therefore, ineffective to fix the secured creditor’s place in the chain of priority.