A bankruptcy court in Texarkana, Texas held that breaches by two debtor-franchisees of a non-competition covenant in their franchise agreement with a print shop franchisor qualified for discharge through bankruptcy.  As the court noted, in addition to equitable remedies such as injunctive relief, Michigan law (under which the franchise agreement was governed) allowed for the award of monetary damages as compensation for violation of a non-competition agreement.  Because monetary damages were an available remedy, the court reasoned, the breach of the covenant qualified as a dischar

The U.S. Trustee in American’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings is challenging American’s $19.8 million golden parachute for its CEO Tom Horton.

Recently, the Fifth Circuit decided a case regarding the appropriate interest rate to be charged when a secured creditor's claim is "crammed down," pursuant to section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Code), 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532. Unfortunately, the decision does little to clarify the confusion precipitated by the Supreme Court's 2004 decision of Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), and perhaps even adds to it.

In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Western Real Estate Equities, LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir. 2013), the court held that the acceptance vote from a minimally and “artificially impaired” class of claims meets the 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10) requirement for the confirmation of a non-consensual “cramdown” chapter 11 plan.

The homestead exemption is important to the many debtors in bankruptcy who own their own homes. But what if the debtor owns the home through his or her single-member LLC? Is that good enough? A Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently said no, ruling that a debtor whose home was owned by her single-member LLC could not take advantage of the homestead exemption. In re Breece, No. 12-8018, 2013 WL 197399 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013).

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11’s fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on March 1, 2013, that a bankruptcy court had not erred in applying a prime plus 1.75 percent interest rate to a secured lender’s $39 million claim under a "cramdown" plan of reorganization. Wells Fargo Bank N.A v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC (In the Matter of Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 776317 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013).

In a recent decision, In re Castleton Plaza, LP, 2013 WL 537269 *1 (Feb. 14, 2013), the Seventh Circuit held that the absolute priority rule – which requires that creditors be paid in full before equity holders receive anything on account of their equity interests under a plan of reorganization – applies equally to the “insiders” of a debtor.

Recently, on the eve of closing a large mortgage loan for a regional mall intended for a single asset securitization, it was determined that there was an extremely remote risk that the mortgage might not be foreclosable due to a peculiarity of the improvements on the real property and local foreclosure practices.