While some states have mandated delays to the foreclosure process, curbing the number of foreclosure filings in recent months, many report that such legislation is only a temporary cure. Foreclosure filings include default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions. According to James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac, October marked the 34th consecutive month where U.S. foreclosure activity increased compared to the prior year. RealtyTrac U.S.

As our economy slides into what could be a long and severe recession, retail bankruptcies are expected to increase. Landlords are presented with a myriad of problems when one of their tenants files for bankruptcy. Although many of the obligations and rights of landlords are well established by current bankruptcy law, a novel question arises when a tenant files for bankruptcy while a landlord is in the process of constructing tenant improvements or is on the verge of providing a tenant allowance. Given the tenant’s right to reject its lease, a landlord is faced with a difficult decision.

In In re River Center Holdings, LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to permit lenders to enforce an oral commitment of the debtors’ principal to fund certain litigation. In River Center, the debtors’ principal had stated at a hearing that he would fund a condemnation action relating to property that served as collateral for the lenders’ financing.

In Henderson v. Powermate Holding Corp. (In re Powermate Holding Corp.)1, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware became the second bankruptcy court to address the status of WARN Act claims after the 2005 amendments to section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In ABN Amro Bank N.V. v. Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A. (In re Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A.),1 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of an injunction pursuant to former section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code (the precursor to current chapter 15, applicable in crossborder insolvency proceedings), which prevented the beneficiary of a guaranty governed by New York law from asserting its guaranty claim against Italian debtor (and guarantor) Parmalat S.p.A. (“Parmalat”) in the United States.

AUTOMOTIVE

EZ Lube LLC, Express Lube Inc. filed for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware.  

Key Plastics files prepackaged Chapter 11 petition; secured $20M in DIP financing.  

Precision Parts International filed Chapter 11 petition; commences winding down operations.  

BROADCASTING

Equity Media Holdings, Corp. filed for Chapter 11; secured lender seeks conversion to Chapter 7  

ENERGY  

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appears to have further raised the hurdle to equitably subordinate claims. Continuing what appears to be a move toward a narrower interpretation of equitable subordination, the Seventh Circuit held that misconduct alone does not provide sufficient justification to equitably subordinate a claim; injury to the interests of other creditors is required as well.

On January 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a decision in the case of Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re: Smart World Tech., LLC) that clarifies the implications of a bankruptcy court's "pre-approval" of the terms of a professional's retention by the bankruptcy estate under Sections 327 and 328 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The decision in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. prohibiting parties from contracting around Bankruptcy Code section 553’s mutuality requirement may disrupt customary business practices, including those widely used in the energy, natural gas and crude oil markets, because it rules that contracting for cross affiliate netting does not “create” the mutuality required for setoff.

The “Ades” and “Berg” groups of investors (the “Ades Berg Group”), were parties who joined in the bankruptcy proceedings of the Bennett Funding Group, Inc. and related companies (the “Bennett Group”), based on claims that, among other things, the Bennett Group had defrauded them in an investment scheme. The Bennett Group was insured under a reinsurance contract issued by Sphere Drake Insurance PLC (“Sphere Drake”). A settlement was reached in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings between some groups of investors and Sphere Drake.