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.

Summary

In a 10 page decision signed May 5, 2011, Judge Walsh of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a motion to dismiss and held that the plaintiff Litigation Trustee satisfied the “particularity” requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), despite having his complaint allege that each transfer within a 13 page list of transfers was fraudulent. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

On April 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court approved certain amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 requiring disclosures by certain creditors and equity holders in Chapter 11 cases. We expect that amended Rule 20191 (“Amended Rule 2019”) will take effect as a matter of law on December 1, 2011 unless in the interim Congress enacts legislation to reject, modify, or defer the rules, which we view as unlikely.

In a decision that clarifies the rights of secured lenders to rents generated by a mortgaged property under New York law, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York has held that rents which were assigned pre-petition pursuant to an assignment of rents executed in connection with a mortgage loan do not belong to the bankruptcy estate because the Lender took sufficient affirmative actions to perfect its rights over the rents.1

In In re Young Broadcasting, Inc., et al., 430 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010), a bankruptcy court strictly construed the change-in-control provisions of a pre-petition credit agreement and refused to confirm an unsecured creditors' committee's plan of reorganization, which had been premised on the reinstatement of the debtors' accelerated secured debt under Section 1124(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that an investor in a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") lacked standing to object to the sale of a chapter 11 debtor's real property, despite that the property served as collateral for loans held in trust by the REMIC for the benefit of its investors.

Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a trustee or debtor-in-possession may sell property free and clear of “any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate.” Thus, a buyer can generally acquire assets from a bankruptcy estate without subjecting itself to liability or claims based on the seller’s prior actions. InMorgan Olson, LLC v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), No. 02-16131, 2011 WL 766661 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

In general, substantive consolidation allows for the assets and liabilities of affiliated debtor entities to be consolidated and disbursed as if the assets were held and the liabilities were owed by a single legal entity. Unlike joint administration, which promotes procedural convenience and efficiency without affecting the substantive rights of creditors, substantive consolidation can force creditors of a solvent debtor to share in the debtors’ aggregate asset pool in parity with creditors of less solvent debtors.