Representing a mortgagee holding liens on 37 unsold condominium units, Herrick, Feinstein successfully blocked a debtor's effort to confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization via cramdown. The plan envisioned sales of 27 unsold units over five years, deferred payments to the mortgagee at the rate of 4.75%, and scheduled principal pay downs from the sale of units.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amended Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”). Rule 2019 governs disclosure requirements for groups and committees that consist of or represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, as well as lawyers and other entities that represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, acting in concert in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Introduction

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In particular, the Supreme Court amended Bankruptcy Rule 2019 to clarify the disclosure required of certain parties in interest in a chapter 9 or 11 bankruptcy case.1 These amendments were drafted by a panel of bankruptcy judges and restructuring experts and are intended to resolve a split in decisions concerning the proper application of the current Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

Summary

In a 5 page decision signed May 4, 2011, Judge Walsh of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that a proceeding initiated by a Debtor, seeking contribution relating to environmental claims is non-core. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Summary

In a 28 page decision signed April 29, 2011, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that in order for a transfer to be considered “substantially contemporaneous” as used by Bankruptcy Code §547(c), it does not necessarily need to comply with the timing requirements of §547(e). Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

We've all heard of Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, but what is Chapter 9? Chapter 9 provides a municipality protection from its creditors while it develops a plan to resolve or adjust its debts. Adjustment of a municipality's debt involves refinancing such debts to (i) extend the time to pay debt obligations or (ii) reduce the amount of interest on such obligations.

In Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill, Ltd.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-8266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2011), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to a small, private leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction that posed no systemic risk to the stability of the financial markets.

In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.

A recent bankruptcy case in Pennsylvania,In re Shubh Hotels Pittsburgh, LLC, 439 B.R. 637 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2010), held that as long as the “debtor-in-possession” exercises its sound business judgment when making its decision, the “debtor-in-possession” can enter into a new 15-year franchise agreement over the objection of the secured lender.