Receiverships and assignments for the benefit of creditors (ABCs) can be important tools for banks and other lenders when a borrower is suffering financial distress. Because they are often cost-effective and efficient, receiverships are being used increasingly throughout the country, and ABCs are commonly utilized in many states. In Minnesota, however, the statutes regarding receiverships and ABCs were outdated or largely ignored; as a result, receivership practices and procedures are not uniform, and ABCs are almost never used.
On May 30, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court in one federal district lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a debt was discharged under a chapter 11 plan confirmation order issued by a bankruptcy court in another federal district. Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia, 1:10-cv-20509-KMM, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10891 (11th Cir. May 30, 2012). The decision makes it clear that a debtor must seek enforcement of its discharge order in the same federal court that granted the discharge in the first place.
In a recent decision, Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 US App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. May 15, 2012), the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court decision which had forcefully quashed a bankruptcy court decision to avoid, as a fraudulent transfer, a $400 million settlement and loan repayment by a parent company to a group of lenders (the “Transeastern lenders”).
In a decision further defining when US public policy restricts the relief a court may grant in aid of a foreign restructuring or insolvency proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 case of Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V. v. ACP Master, Ltd. (In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V.), Ch. 15 Case No. 11-33335-HDH-15, 2012 WL 2138112 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2012) refused to a enforce a Mexican restructuring plan that novated and extinguished the guaranty obligations of the Mexican debtor’s non-debtor subsidiary guarantors.
In Loop 76, LLC, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the “BAP”) recently held that a bankruptcy court may consider whether a creditor received a third party source of payment (e.g., a guaranty) when determining whether that creditor’s claim is “substantially similar” to other claims for purposes of plan classification under 11 U.S.C. § 1122(a). In re Loop 76, LLC, 465 B.R. 525 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).
Chapter 11 creditors' committees and debtors continue to challenge lenders' prepayment premiums, commitment fees and post-bankruptcy interest claims in reorganization cases. Nevertheless, courts regularly reject these challenges in well-reasoned decisions. This Alert focuses on two of these recent decisions:In re Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 2017952 (9th Cir.
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.
On June 13, 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”) published an opinion ruling on whether the Mexican Plan of Reorganization (the “Concurso Plan”) of the Mexican glass-manufacturing company, Vitro, S.A.B.
The recently decided case of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ____ (2012), puts to rest a conflict among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits as to the right of secured creditors to credit bid at a proposed sale of their collateral under a plan of reorganization that the secured creditor opposes. The practice of credit bidding is codified in the Bankruptcy Code at 11 U.S.C. §363(k) and is the right of a secured creditor to bid the amount of its secured debt at a debtor’s sale of the creditor’s collateral in bankruptcy.
Between 2008 and 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) revisited the circumstances under which it would approve third-party non-debtor releases in Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. Traditionally, the Second Circuit found such releases to be appropriate if the bankruptcy case had certain special — “unique” — circumstances.1 InIn re Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52 (2d. Cir.