Our May 11th memo entitled “General Growth Properties Bankruptcy Court Defers Final Ruling on Cash Collateral, Cash Management and DIP Financing Issues” concluded that the ultimate impact of the bankruptcy filings of General Growth Properties, Inc. and its affiliates would depend in large part on how the cash collateral and DIP Loan issues were resolved. On May 13th, Judge Allan L. Gropper, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge before whom these bankruptcies are pending, entered final orders on the pending cash collateral, cash management and debtor-in-possession financing motions.

Debtors, creditors, purchasers and lenders continue to carefully monitor employee incentive programs after the 2005 changes to Bankruptcy Code brought on by BAPCA. Although many feared the changes to section 503(c) would eliminate an important tool for creating incentives for employees, courts have consistently approved reasonable and well-thought-out incentive programs.

Factual Background

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.

Following several weeks of speculation about how pending cash collateral, cash management, and debtor-in-possession financing motions might affect basic principles of structured finance, the bankruptcy court deferred a final ruling on the motions and extended the interim cash collateral order. In so doing, Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York suggested that CMBS lenders organize themselves so that common issues can be identified and resolution expedited.

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?

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a third party had submitted itself to jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,1 the Supreme Court ruled that a party who has not filed a claim against a bankrupt's estate is not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. A year later, in Langenkamp v.

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a nondebtor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, even if the parties had entered into pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff.1 In reaching its decision, the Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to “mutual” obligations — i.e., direct obligations between a single obligor and obligee.

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.

A “roll-up” is a form of postpetition financing which has the effect of elevating the priority of prepetition debt. In a roll-up, the prepetition debt of the postpetition, new money lenders is rolled into the debtor in possession financing, thus affording the prepetition debt superpriority status and, in many circumstances, ensuring the rolled-up debt is paid in full on the effective date of the plan of reorganization, (unless the lender consents to different treatment under the plan).1

In In re Entringer Bakeries, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the viability of the “earmarking doctrine” as a judicially-created defense to a preference action under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.