Deutsche Bank held an under-secured home mortgage from a Chapter 13 debtor. The debtor was in arrears, but wanted to retain possession and control of her home. Thus, in her Chapter 13 plan, the debtor proposed to cure the arrearage, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1322(e). The problem, however, was that the parties could not agree on the arrearage amount.

For many hotel owners, it is an all-too-familiar story: occupancy is down, and even though operating expenses have been cut to the bone, there is just not enough money to go around. It seems there is always another bill: franchise fees, payroll, real property taxes, debt service—the list goes on. The unfortunate result is that either because of a failure to make a payment or a breach of some other covenant, the owner finds itself looking at a default notice from its lender. When dealing with a loan default, there are four things the hotel owner needs to understand.

On October 8, 2010, the FDIC approved a Proposed Rule that would implement certain provisions of its authority granted by Congress in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title II”) to act as receiver for covered financial companies (failing financial companies that pose significant risks to the financial stability of the United States) when a Bankruptcy Code proceeding is found to be inappropriate. Prior to the enactment of the Dodd‑Frank Act on July 21, 2010, no unified statutory scheme for the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies existed.

A New York bankruptcy judge held on October 4, 2010, that second lien lenders could object to a debtor’s bid procedures approved by the first lien lenders despite the terms of an intercreditor agreement inIn re Boston Generating, LLC, No. 10-14419 (SCC) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2010).1 The intercreditor agreement provided the first lien lenders with the “exclusive right to…make determinations regarding the…sale” of the collateral. According to the court, however, the agreement did not expressly preclude the second lien lenders from objecting to bid procedures.

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit decided In re EDM Corp.,[1] affirming that a creditor’s priority in collateral may be sacrificed if the debtor’s exact legal name is not exclusively used in the financing statement.

In an October 19, 2010 opinion arising out of the Scotia Pacific bankruptcy cases, the Fifth Circuit ruled that reorganized Scotia and its affiliate Pacific Lumber Company were obliged – nearly 2½ years after Scotia’s reorganization plan was consummated – to pay Scotia’s former secured lenders approximately $30 million on account of a mistake made by the bankruptcy judge in calculating the amount owed to the secured lenders for the use of their collateral during the bankruptcy cases.

Introduction: Earlier this year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC[1] sent shockwaves through the secured lending community. In a 2-1 decision, the court held that a debtor can confirm a plan of reorganization while denying the secured creditor the opportunity to credit bid for its collateral if the plan provides the lender with the "indubitable equivalent" of its claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Oct. 19, 2010, corrected a bankruptcy court’s calculation of a secured lender group’s superpriority administrative claim more than two years after consummation of the debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan. In re SCOPAC et al., F.3d__, 2010 WL 4069525, at *2-3, *5-6 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (Jones, Ch.J.) [“Pacific Lumber II”]; see alsoIn re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229, 242 (5th Cir. 2009) [“Pacific Lumber I”] (plan “substantially consummated within weeks of confirmation”).

Some legal commentators have lamented the extent to which lenders have been able to use debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements to gain control over an entire Chapter 11 case.

The treatment of derivatives, or “qualified financial contracts”, under state insurance insolvency laws has received increased attention since the financial crisis. Four states passed laws in 2010 that allow for the exercise of certain netting collateral and termination provisions in an insurance insolvency without regard to the automatic stay mechanism and similar laws are anticipated in other states in 2011. Federal laws provide a level of certainty with respect to the treatment of certain swap agreement provisions in a general corporate bankruptcy. The U.S.