Summary
In a 32 page decision signed January 3, 2012, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that holders of litigation tracking warrants that would be paid out in stock of the debtor were equity instruments, and would be paid out at the same priority as common equity under the bankruptcy plan. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Background
It is not uncommon for firms to use standard language in their account agreements that creates liens on Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Two recent federal court decisions, however, suggest that granting such a lien on an IRA may constitute a prohibited transaction that causes these accounts to lose their tax exempt status, which in turn could potentially make IRAs subject to third-party creditor claims. These two decisions could have far-reaching implications for any firm that has used or still uses similar lien-creating language in their account agreements.
The usual Friday release of a large number of letter rulings by the IRS included several rulings of interest on reorganizations and consolidated return issues.
Prepayment provisions are intended, in part, to protect lenders in a depressed market from losses resulting from the costs of replacing their loans sooner than expected and having to relend at rates lower than those originally charged. A New York federal district court recently upheld a bankruptcy judge's ruling denying a lender's claim for a $7.5 million prepayment premium against a borrower-debtor.1 The lender must have been both surprised and disappointed to learn from the courts' decisions that this result could have been avoided had the lender's loan documents included
Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to create a procedure to recognize an insolvency or debt adjustment proceeding in another country and to, in essence, domesticate that proceeding in the United States. Once a foreign proceeding is “recognized,” a step which cannot be achieved without a foreign representative satisfying various requirements, the foreign representative may obtain certain protections from a United Stated bankruptcy court, including the imposition of the automatic stay to protect the foreign debtor’s property in the United States.
On December 1, 2011, critical changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure took effect. Among the changes, which impact all creditors, are amendments altering the information required on a proof of claim filed in a bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy Rule 3001 was substantially changed to require, among other information: (i) an itemized statement of the amount of interest, fees, expenses or other charges incurred before the bankruptcy petition was filed, if a claim includes the aforementioned fees and expenses; (ii) a statement of the amount necessary to cure any default as of
Many creditors have had the unfortunate experience of receiving a demand letter or adversary complaint alleging that they received avoidable transfers—commonly known as "preferential payments" or "preferences"—during the 90 days preceding a customer's federal bankruptcy filing. Such claims arise under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, and can result in a creditor having to return certain payments made during the 90-day preference period.
Pennsylvania Bar Institute Course
IN RE: ORTIZ (December 30, 2011)
Bankruptcy Rule changes, effective December 1, 2011, require mortgage holders and servicers to include additional documentation supporting proofs of claim filed in individual debtor cases. Mortgage holders and servicers must follow these rules or face sanctions and potential loss of the right to present the omitted documentation as evidence in subsequent proceedings.