In the first part of this article, we considered the effect of section 365(d)(4) and other Bankruptcy Code sections on retailer debtors and their respective landlords, as well as on how retailer debtors can utilize the holiday sales season to implement a successful reorganization.

In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-B-30029 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Young Broadcasting, Inc., et al., 430 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Dec. 6, 2010, summarily affirmed a bankruptcy court’s designation of a secured lender’s vote on a reorganization plan in a two-page order, effectively enabling the debtor to cram down the lender’s claim. In re DBSD North America, Inc., __ F.3d__, 2010 WL 4925878 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2010).1 As a result, the lender who bought all of the debtor’s senior first-lien secured debt at par will be paid only interest over a period of four years before its loan matures. SeeIn re DBSD North America, Inc., 419 B.R. 179, 207-08 (Bankr.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.

Courts generally agree that pre-petition agreements to forgo the protec-tions of bankruptcy are invalid as against public policy. A recent Tenth Cir-cuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision calls this accepted premise into question by holding that provisions contained in a limited liability company agreement that expressly barred the company, and restricted the manager, from filing a bankruptcy petition were enforceable. DB Capital Holdings, LLC v. Aspen HH Ventures, LLC (In re DB Capital Holdings, LLC), No. 10-046, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4176 (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Dec.

Generally speaking, Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state – meaning that lenders can foreclose on mortgages of Massachusetts property without seeking judicial approval beforehand. In certain circumstances, however, a pre-foreclosure judicial proceeding is required solely to determine whether the borrower is in the active military service and entitled to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §532.

Pursuant to § 1104 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the court may appoint a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. A qualified examiner, with a clearly defined mission, can drastically affect the outcome of the bankruptcy case and directly impact the return to creditors. The difference between a successful financial restructure or liquidation and an investigation yielding little value to the creditors often depends on the approach taken by the examiner and his professionals.

In November of 2010, the trustee for the Circuit City Stores, Inc., liquidating trust filed more than 500 adversary proceedings against creditors seeking the recovery of alleged preferential payments. The extent of the trustee's success in recovering these payments will impact the overall distribution to creditors. Creditors in bankruptcy cases should be aware that preference litigation allows a trustee or debtor-in-possession to recover payments received by a creditor during the period immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing.

In In re Rodriguez, No. 09-2724 (3rd Cir. Dec 23, 2010), a three-judge panel for the Third Circuit considered whether an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code prevented a mortgage servicer from accounting for a pre-petition shortage on a mortgage escrow account in its post-petition calculation of the bankrupt debtors’ future monthly escrow payments. The majority held that the bankruptcy stay did prohibit such conduct by the loan servicer.