Visteon and Affiliates File for Bankruptcy Protection
Visteon Corporation and related affiliates (“Visteon”) filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on May 28, 2009, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“Bankruptcy Court”). Visteon intends to continue to operate its businesses while in bankruptcy. Although Visteon UK, Ltd., has already filed bankruptcy in Great Britain, it appears that Visteon’s other non-U.S. subsidiaries will not be filing separate proceedings and will not be part of Visteon’s U.S. bankruptcy proceeding.
This morning, General Motors Corp. (GM) announced in a Form 8-K filing that the U.S. Treasury Department has proposed details of a reorganization plan to GM in the event that GM seeks bankruptcy protection and bankruptcy court approval for the sale of substantially all of its assets to a newly organized company (New GM) pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (363 Sale). Following the proposed 363 Sale, the U.S.
Metropolitan Insurance Company has joined ING Clarion Capital Loan Services, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and FRM Funding Company, Inc in requesting the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss as bad faith filings the bankruptcy cases of twenty-one property level CMBS borrower subsidiaries of General Growth Properties, Inc. ING filed the first motion on May 4th with respect to eight debtors, and a hearing was set for May 27th. That hearing was subsequently adjourned to June 17th. Creditors having similar motions to be heard on June 17th were required to file their motions to dismiss by May 29th .
With an increasing emphasis on identifying value in the marketplace, entrepreneurs have focused their efforts on acquiring debt instruments, senior secured and mezzanine, in particular. Two primary strategies are being employed with respect to the debt: (1) acquire the debt for the purposes of restructuring the terms with the borrower(s) or (2) acquire the debt for the purpose of exercising the creditor’s remedies (i.e., foreclosing on the equity).
As widely expected, GM and all of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on June 1, 2009. Besides General Motors Corporation, the other three associated debtors are: Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc., Saturn, LLC and Saturn Distribution Corporation. Please note that GMAC is not included in these bankruptcy filings.
The Chapter 11 filings on April 16, 2009 by General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”), GGP Limited Partnership (“GGP LP”) and 166 of their shopping center subsidiaries, many of which were formed as bankruptcy-remote, special purpose entities (“SPEs”), raised concerns for the commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) industry.
In an unusual ruling recently entered in the Chapter 11 case of Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC and certain of its subsidiaries, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana equitably subordinated the claim of a non-insider senior secured lender. While the equitable subordination of a claim is rare, the Yellowstone decision may signal that courts will be looking at loan transactions with a highly critical eye.
Reinhardt v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance Inc. (In re Reinhardt)
563 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009)
On May 26, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) filed a motion requesting the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to establish August 24 as the deadline for filing proofs of claim against LBHI and its affiliates, and to establish a procedure for such filing, including a required form to be completed online relating to derivatives claims, and a new proof of claim form specific to this case.
On May 26, 2009, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated U.S. chapter 11 debtors (“Lehman” or the “U.S. Debtors”) filed a motion (“Motion”) requesting the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (“Bankruptcy Court”) to set August 24, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. (ET) as the deadline for filing proofs of claim against the U.S. Debtors (the “Bar Date”). The Motion1 seeks entry of a proposed order (“Proposed Order”), that (i) establishes the Bar Date; (ii) approves the Proof of Claim Form; and (iii) approves the proposed notice procedures and form for the Bar Date notices.