Due to inconsistent decisions in the Second Circuit and Third Circuit, there has been some uncertainty as to whether a purchaser of a bankruptcy claim is subject to defenses that a debtor would have against the original creditor. Recently, this issue was settled with respect to cases filed in the Third Circuit.

On September 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Second Circuit) affirmed the rulings of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) in the bankruptcy cases of American Airlines and related debtors (the Debtors) holding that the Debtors do not have to pay a make-whole premium when repaying certain of their outstanding financings (the Indentures).

CR&B Alert
Commercial Restructuring & Bankruptcy News
In This Issue:
• Consequences of the Failure of a Secured
Creditor to File a Timely Proof of Claim—2
• Private Equity Funds Potentially Liable for
Portfolio Company’s Unfunded Pension
Liability—2
• Make-Whole Payment Not ‘Unmatured
Interest’—3
• Tax Status of Q-Sub Debtor Not Estate
Property; Debtor Has No Standing to Challenge
Parent’s Sub-S Revocation—3
• Don’t Let Excess Insurers Avoid Coverage
Based on Settlements or Bankruptcy—4

On October 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a Seventh Circuit decision¹ in the Castleton Plaza, LP case, which held that a new value plan proposed by the debtor in which an equity-holder’s spouse would provide a cash infusion to the debtor in exchange for 100 percent of the reorganiz

Upon learning that its borrower has filed a case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code,  a secured lender may decide not to participate in that case. The lender may want to ignore the bankruptcy case in order to avoid the expense of retaining bankruptcy counsel, or, relying on the general rule that liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected,  may simply prefer to wait until the chapter 11 case ends and then enforce its lien. In a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Acceptance Loan Company, Incorporated v.

In a recent advisory, we reported on an apparently favorable decision to secured creditors from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that held that a secured creditor’s claim survives bankruptcy where the secured creditor received notice of the case and was found to have not actively participated in it.

Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code provides, subject to certain exceptions, that the Bankruptcy Code “does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such creditor to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case.” Debts are considered “mutual” when they are due to and from the same persons or entities in the same capacity.

Commercial landlords hailed as a significant victory the enactment in 2005 of a 210-day “drop dead” period after which a lease of nonresidential real property with respect to which the debtor is the lessee is deemed rejected unless, prior to the expiration of the period, a chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”) or bankruptcy trustee assumes or rejects the lease.

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a lender’s security interest in accounts was not perfected because a reference to “proceeds” in the lender’s UCC financing statement did not expressly refer to “accounts.” The Sixth Circuit surprisingly interpreted the definition of “proceeds”1 in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code to exclude “accounts”2 (despite and without reference to provisions of UCC Article 9 to the contrary).