In In re Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Co., No. 11-15719 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2013), the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that a law firm hired to represent the debtor could not assert privilege on behalf of the debtor’s individual directors and officers.
Adjustments to certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code may affect your decision and strategy to either file a bankruptcy or in defending certain actions filed against you or your company. The automatic adjustments to the dollar amounts in various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. went into effect on April 1, 2013. You may access the official forms by clicking the following link to the United States Courts:
In a short opinion for what it considered an “easy case,” the Supreme Court decided 8-01 in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank2 on May 29, 2012 that if a plan of reorganization proposes a sale of property, secured lenders with liens on that property must be allowed to credit bid, i.e., “pay” using the amount of their allowed secured claim. This is a definite victory for secured lenders who, generally, will now not have to advance additional capital in order to protect their collateral.
Firms offering comprehensive financial services scored a significant victory on April 9, 2013, when Judge Robert Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Capmark Financial Group Inc.’s (“Capmark”) insider preference action against four lender affiliates of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”), which arose out of Capmark’s 2009 bankruptcy.1 Davis Polk represented the Goldman Sachs lender affiliates and advanced the arguments adopted by Judge Sweet.
Owners of Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtors have long devised schemes to try to hold on to their ownership interests while stiffing the debtors’ creditors. In the past, owners attempted to do this by proposing reorganization plans that paid creditors only a portion of what they are owed while selling all of the equity in the reorganized debtor to the owner for a nominal new investment.
In June, 2012, Stockton California filed a bankruptcy case under chapter 9. While businesses and individuals are entitled to file bankruptcy petitions without bankruptcy court approval, the same is not true for municipalities. They can only be debtors if, among other things, the majority of their creditors agree; they negotiate in good faith and fail to obtain majority agreement; negotiation is impracticable; or a creditor is attempting to obtain a voidable preference. In addition, the bankruptcy court can dismiss a municipality’s petition if it was not filed in “good fait
Recently, we've been seeing debtors try to confirm cram down plans of reorganization that are unfavorable to the secured creditor by "gerrymandering" the class of unsecured claims. The typical situation finds the secured creditor holding an undersecured loan. Under Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the secured creditor's claim is automatically bifurcated into a secured claim in an amount equal to the value of the collateral and an unsecured claim for the balance of the debt.
The March 2013 Commercial Financial Services Brief included a cautionary tale about a secured party’s inadvertent loss of its security interest in its borrower’s bankruptcy case as a result of the secured party having mistakenly filed a UCC termination statement. This article describes another situation in which a secured party experienced a similar haunting outcome.
A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York1 found that a UCC-3 termination statement filed on behalf of a secured creditor was not effective because it lacked the proper authorization.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender “lost its possessory lien when it turned the Debtor’s account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection.” In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., _____ B.R. 2013 _____, 2013WL 1188041, *5 (8th Cir. B.A.P. March 25, 2013) (emphasis added).