Washington Governor Christine Gregoire has signed into law a series of changes to the state Receivership Act that will make it easier (and possibly cheaper) for creditors to utilize the Receivership Act as a tool to resolve troubled loan situations with their borrowers. The revisions will become effective 90 days after the Legislature adjourns, making July 24, 2011, the likely effective date. The changes clarify a number of points that previously puzzled both judges and practitioners.
Creditors' Rights
In re Innkeepers USA Trust, et al., -- B.R. --, 2011 WL 1206173 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)
To view the webinar, click here.
To download the PowerPoint slides, click here.
To download the materials, click here.
A senior creditor can obtain significant leverage over a chapter 11 debtor if it is able to vote not only its claim but the claims of junior creditors in connection with the solicitation of a plan of reorganization. Obtaining such leverage, however, has proven problematic in the past. Among other things, courts have been reluctant to enforce pre-bankruptcy assignments or waivers of voting rights contained in intercreditor agreements, holding that such assignments or waivers may violate the Bankruptcy Code and rules. In Avondale Gateway Center Entitlement, LLC v.
A New York bankruptcy judge has refused to permit a debtor to use rents generated by its real property because the rents absolutely assigned to the lender pre-petition were not property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.2 Before the bankruptcy filing, the lender sent the borrower a default notice and terminated the borrower's license to collect rents. The lender also directed tenants to pay rents to it and not the borrower, commenced a foreclosure action, and sought appointment of a receiver.
Reversing the bankruptcy court, a Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that a debtor in a single asset real estate case did not provide adequate protection to a creditor by providing replacement liens in the rents where there was no equity cushion.4 The notion that granting the lender a lien on future rents to replace the expenditure of prior months' rents was rejected. Accordingly, the appellate panel held that the debtor could not use rents collected post-petition to pay ordinary administrative expenses, such as fees of its professionals.
It is commonly known that a borrower's agreement with a third party not to file a bankruptcy case is unenforceable due to public policy considerations. Accordingly, lenders have searched for ways to make it difficult or painful for their borrowers to file for bankruptcy, such as imposing the requirement that prior authorization of an independent director or member be a prerequisite to a bankruptcy filing by the borrower, or requiring the borrower's principal to execute a non-recourse carve-out guaranty that would impose personal liability should the borrower file for bankruptcy.
In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.
On April 25, 2011, as widely expected, a group of Lehman creditors holding claims arising from terminated derivatives transactions filed a competing plan of reorganization and related disclosure statement in the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. As a result of the new filing, there are now three competing plans – (1) the Debtors’ Plan, (2) the Ad Hoc Group’s Plan (filed by a group of bondholder creditors) and (3) the Non-Consolidation Plan (filed by the derivative claimants) - in the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings.
When a company saddled with potential environmental liabilities seeks bankruptcy protection, the goals of Chapter 11—giving the reorganized debtor a “fresh start” and fairly treating similarly situated creditors—can conflict with the goals of environmental laws, such as ensuring that the “polluter pays.” Courts have long struggled to reconcile this tension.