Introduction
In Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In re Oneida Ltd.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed whether a premium payment created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“DRA”)2 for pension plans terminated as part of a chapter 11 restructuring is a pre-petition claim or a post-petition administrative expense. The Court held that the statutorily mandated premium payment was a contingent pre-petition claim and was discharged upon confirmation of the debtor’s plan.
While derivations of intercreditor agreements continue to enhance the rights of the senior secured party, whether the many provisions provided for are enforceable in bankruptcy remains a burning question. Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia in In re Aerosol Packaging, LLC, 2006 WL 4030176 (Bankr. N.D.Ga. 2006) helped bring clarity to one of the most important of these issues: is the right of a senior creditor to vote the claim of a junior creditor on whether to accept or reject a plan of reorganization enforceable in bankruptcy?
California has seen a string of three Chapter 9 filings this year and faces a long line of distressed municipalities. Given this backdrop, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) figures to play a prominent role in the resolution of many of these situations (in or out of bankruptcy). Thus, the bond‑buying public will scrutinize closely any steps that CalPERS takes to protect its claims in the Bankruptcy Court.
On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a contractual right of a triangular (non-mutual) setoff was unenforceable in bankruptcy, even though the contract was safe harbored. In re Lehman Brothers, Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently denied the appointment of an examiner in U.S. Bank National Association v. Wilmington Trust Co. (In re Spansion, Inc.),1 despite the requirement in section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code that the Court "shall" appoint an examiner in certain circumstances. In making this decision, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J.
Part One of this article, published in the last edition of the Restructuring Review, examined recent developments in the gaming industry, focusing on strategies employed by gaming companies to increase liquidity and avoid insolvency. Part Two focuses on how potential buyers can use the bankruptcy process to purchase gaming facilities, free and clear of prior liens, and describes certain complications inherent in the acquisition of this type of asset.
Acquiring Gaming Facilities through Chapter 11
Sale Process
Introduction
In March 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided In re Airadigm Communications, Inc. (Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. FCC),1 a case that built upon the Supreme Court’s decision in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications, Inc (“NextWave”).2 In NextWave, the Supreme Court held that the FCC’s participation in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
In In re Calpine Corporation, 2007 WL 685595 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered the issue of whether secured creditors whose debt was being paid prior to its original maturity date were entitled to a prepayment premium.
On November 27, 2012, in a ruling that undoubtedly will impact the choice of venue for many large corporate bankruptcies in the future, Judge Shelley C. Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York transferred venue of the chapter 11 cases of Patriot Coal Corporation and ninety-eight of its affiliates to the Eastern District of Missouri.