A recent decision out of the Southern District of Georgia shows the collateral impact of the Crawfordv. LVNV Funding proof of claim decision issued by the Eleventh Circuit.

Under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor or trustee can sell estate assets “free and clear of any interest” in such assets. This short, simple string of six words represents one of the most powerful tools in the bankruptcy professional’s arsenal.

This is the first of three follow-up blogs to our earlier publication Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: General Overview. This blog explores ABC’s lack of statutory automatic stay and whether there is a functional and practical equivalent. The next blog will discuss whether a creditor may file a claim after the statutory 120-day deadline.

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”

– Albert Einstein

Virtually all public indentures contain provisions allowing the issuer to cure ambiguities and make other technical changes to the debt documentation without debtholder consent. When the purported ambiguities have substantive consequences, however, issuers may not be able to get away with an amendment that lacks debtholder approval. InGSO Coastline Credit Partners L.P. v. Global A&T Electronics Ltd. (NY App. Div. 1st Dept. May 3, 2016), a New York lower court bought into a “cure of ambiguity” argument and on that basis granted a motion to dismiss.

Market participants involved in distressed exchange offers have become accustomed to grappling with the implications of Trust Indenture Act Section 316(b) in the context of potential exit consents, i.e., are the contemplated amendments to the indenture governing the securities subject to the exchange significant enough to impair or affect the right of a holder to receive payment of principal and interest on or after the due dates of the relevant note?

In this exciting age of startups, the market is brimming with opportunities for individuals and entities alike to invest in emerging companies. Today’s rapid rate of technology development justifies investors’ eagerness to take an interest in innovative companies, hoping to find the next “unicorn.” Notwithstanding the fast pace of the tech industry, it remains important for investors to conduct due diligence before kicking funds into any business, especially when bargaining for a security interest or license.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that, when debt on promissory note secured by mortgage has been discharged in bankruptcy, the holder of the note may not pursue collection against the maker of note, but the mortgagee has standing to foreclose on the collateral property, and can use the amounts due on the note as evidence to establish that it may collect from the forced sale of the property.

The bankruptcy court overseeing the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases rejected efforts by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) to recover roughly $1 billion in payments made to numerous noteholder defendants from the liquidation of collateral originally pledged to secure both obligations under notes issued by special purpose entities and credit default swap (CDS) obligations to LBSF, holding that the termination of the swap and liquidation and distribution of the collateral were protected by the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor.

Court holds that distributions made pursuant to priority payment provisions contained in CDO transactions are protected by Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code