许多企业在生产经营过程中，将名下特定财产出租收取租金的同时，也在该特定财产上设定抵押以增加融资渠道。这类企业进入破产程序后，抵押权人虽仍对该特定财产享有优先受偿权，但受到漫长冗杂的破产程序影响，抵押权人权利的实现或多或少会受到一定程度的限制或拖延。而与此同时，特定财产在企业进入破产程序后可能仍在继续产生租金、占用费等法定孳息。抵押权人能否享有并以何种形式享有这部分法定孳息呢？这一问题既关系到抵押权人权利的保护，也关系到全体债权人的公平受偿，有必要进行深入研究，本文的探讨即由此展开。

一、问题的提出之实践案例场景

情景一：【债务人以自有财产提供抵押，债务人进入破产程序】甲公司向乙公司借款，同时作为担保，甲公司将其所有的大楼抵押给了乙公司；日常经营中，甲公司将大楼出租并收取租金。随后，乙公司因甲公司逾期还款起诉甲公司并申请法院对大楼采取了保全措施；最终，甲公司因无法清偿到期债务进入破产程序，管理人接管后，决定对大楼的租赁合同继续履行。甲公司进入破产程序后，乙公司及时向管理人申报了债权并说明了债权的担保情况，最终，人民法院裁定确认乙公司系甲公司的有财产担保债权人。

In the ten years before COVID-19, the national and global economy, along with business optimism, steadily improved. Some businesses, of course, failed as competitive pressures or mistaken assumptions led to missed projections, blown covenants, loan defaults, and financial restructuring, if not outright liquidation.

But a prudent ABL lender typically suffered little in a properly underwritten loan, even in a wind down. Receivables remained generally collectible, inventory readily converted into receivables, and machinery and equipment was salvageable at auction.

Looming maturity dates (for which borrowers are not prepared to pay the remaining balance) or other monetary defaults of numerous commercial mortgages may present many opportunities for purchasing property on a discounted basis. With proper precautions and investigation, what appears to be a “deal” really can be a “deal.” However, purchasing a property at a foreclosure sale or other distressed sale has many traps for the unwary. What appears to be a bargain can quickly turn into a nightmare, if the buyer rushes into the purchase without enough information.

On August 4, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division extended equitable principles previously applied in mortgage foreclosure cases to how far an unsecured judgment creditor could go to satisfy its lien against a debtor, deciding to follow a line of cases standing for the principal that “even in the absence of express statutory authorization, a court has inherent equitable authority to allow a fair market value credit in order to prevent a double recovery by a creditor against a debtor.” Moreover, in the case, MMU of New York, Inc. v.

In re SJT Ventures, LLC, 2010 WL 3342206 (Bankr. N.D. Texas 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Commercial real estate foreclosures present a number of significant challenges to lenders, special servicers and their counsel that residential foreclosures do not.  But residential foreclosures make up the vast majority of state courts’ foreclosure dockets, so the court system – including Judges and Master Commissioners – is often unfamiliar of the challenges associated with commercial foreclosures.  This can result in delays, unnecessary expense and the associated frustration that invariably follows when a commercial real estate asset is tied up in Court. 

IRS Clarifies That a Typical “Bad Boy Guarantee” Will Not Cause an Otherwise Nonrecourse Financing to Be Treated as Recourse

On April 15, 2016, the IRS released a generic legal advice memorandum (the “GLAM”)¹ providing an important and helpful clarification of the treatment of a guarantee of a partnership nonrecourse liability when the guarantee is conditioned on certain typical “nonrecourse carve-out” events (commonly referred to as “bad boy guarantees”).

On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.

In a decision to be hailed by buyers of distressed debt and bankruptcy claims on the secondary loan market, on Oct. 15, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in a fact-specific ruling, held that an assignment of claim does not violate New York’s champerty statute (forbidding trading in litigation claims) if the purpose of the assignment is to collect damages by means of a lawsuit for losses on a debt instrument in which the assignee holds a pre-existing proprietary interest. Trust for the Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.

En este artículo abordamos un cambio significativo en la legislación portuguesa: el Decreto-Ley nº 48/2024, de 25 de julio, que aportó una nueva dinámica a la prevalencia del derecho de retención sobre la hipoteca. Este tema es crucial para comprender las implicaciones en el marco jurídico actual, especialmente en los casos de insolvencia y rescate de empresas.