First State Bank of Red Bud v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Schaffer), No. 10-198- GPM, 2011 WL 1118666 (S.D. Ill. March 28, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7. The Debtors own and have title to real property ("Property"). Prior to the Petition Date, the husband borrowed $85,000 from Lender. This loan was reflected by a promissory note signed only by the husband, as "Borrower." The term "Note" is defined in the Mortgage as the promissory note signed by Borrower. On the same date, a mortgage granting Lender a mortgage on the Property was executed.
INTRODUCTION
Numerous bankruptcy trustees have attempted to claw back from colleges and universities — and even from private elementary and secondary schools — the tuition payments that parents made on behalf of their children, when the parents subsequently filed for bankruptcy.
Recently, on the eve of closing a large mortgage loan for a regional mall intended for a single asset securitization, it was determined that there was an extremely remote risk that the mortgage might not be foreclosable due to a peculiarity of the improvements on the real property and local foreclosure practices.
In re Homebanc Mortgage Corp.,No. 07-51740-KJC, 2013 WL 211180 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 18, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The Bankruptcy Court found that individual repurchase transactions having a purchase price of zero may fall within the definition of "repurchase agreement" under section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code provided that the master agreement governing such transactions acknowledges that each transaction constitutes consideration for every other transaction under the master agreement.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Favorable contracts are an important asset for a bankruptcy estate. If a contract is an executory contract (a contract with performance remaining by both parties), the Bankruptcy Code gives a debtor the choice of either assuming and performing under the contract going forward, or rejecting the contract and leaving the resulting rejection damages as a claim against the bankruptcy estate. Similarly, a debtor may choose to perform or not perform under a nonexecutory contract for which it has continuing obligations.
In a decision of considerable importance for bankruptcy debtors and lenders, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling earlier today in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, --- S.Ct. ----, 2012 WL 1912197 (2012). In this highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held that a debtor may not confirm a plan under the “cramdown” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A) where the plan proposes to sell a secured lender’s collateral without affording the creditor the opportunity to credit-bid for the collateral.
Prepayment provisions are intended, in part, to protect lenders in a depressed market from losses resulting from the costs of replacing their loans sooner than expected and having to relend at rates lower than those originally charged. A New York federal district court recently upheld a bankruptcy judge's ruling denying a lender's claim for a $7.5 million prepayment premium against a borrower-debtor.1 The lender must have been both surprised and disappointed to learn from the courts' decisions that this result could have been avoided had the lender's loan documents included
On October 31, 2011, the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, Bankruptcy Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, issued an opinion denying confirmation of two competing proposed plans of reorganization in the chapter 11 cases of In re Tribune Company, et al.