One consequence of the depressed real estate market has been numerous Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases wherein the debtor seeks confirmation of a “dirt-for-debt” plan. In such a plan, instead of paying the secured creditor the value of the real property securing the debt through restructured loan terms, the debtor proposes to convey part or all of the real property securing the debt to the creditor in full satisfaction of its secured claim.

IN RE: GOLF 255, INC. (July 22, 2011)

In its ruling on Wednesday 27 July in the matter of Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Lte & Anor [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the appeal by Lehman Brothers Special Finance Inc. ("LSF") relating to the validity of an alleged anti-deprivation provision known as a 'flip' provision which, has the effect of altering the payment priority order as a result of a bankruptcy of the relevant swap counterparty, in this case Lehman Brothers.

Summary

In a 24 page decision signed July 8, 2011, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to for summary judgment, holding a non-debtor defendant liable with the Debtor as a single employer for alleged WARN Act violations. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

While some fans of the Cleveland Indians have long complained about the frugality of owner Paul Dolan, at least Mr. Dolan has never had trouble making payroll. In perhaps the biggest event to occur off the field since Walter O'Malley moved the team from Brooklyn, the Los Angeles Dodgers filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on June 27, 2011.

As many creditors have unfortunately discovered, the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to sue the creditor for certain payments – called preferences – that the creditor received from the debtor prior to the bankruptcy.

This post is about a junkyard, hogs getting slaughtered, and a bankruptcy judge poised to sanction a creditor and her counsel. The message from the case to would-be claimants in other cases is simple: do not “overreach.”In re U Lock, Inc., Case No. 22-20823, 2023 WL 308210, at *1 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2023).

“The theme is clear: absent financial distress, there is no reason for Chapter 11 and no valid bankruptcy purpose.”

Mr and Mrs Hughes had granted a tenancy of a house to Mr Howell. He did not pay all of the rent and so they instructed Eleanor Solomon of Anthony Gold who issued possession proceedings. In September 2015 a possession order and money judgment were made against him. He did not satisfy the judgment debt and a bankruptcy petition was presented.

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Kellendonk v State of Western Australia, in the matter of Jasienska-Dudek (a Bankrupt) [2021] FCA 418, where former mortgagees satisfied the Court that property disclaimed by the bankruptcy trustee should vest in them on the basis of a prior dealing between themselves and the bankrupt.

Key takeaways