On May 31, 2009, approximately 30 days after Chrysler Group LLC and affiliated debtors filed for bankruptcy relief, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized the sale of substantially all of Chrysler’s assets to “New Chrysler” – an entity formed by Chrysler and Fiat Automobiles SpA and initially majority-owned by Chrysler’s Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – free and clear of liens, claims and encumbrances under section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Fiat Transaction).

In the fourth quarter of 2008, global credit markets were virtually frozen, leading many distressed businesses and their constituents to take measures to avoid bankruptcy filings at almost all costs. Without access to debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, bankruptcy most often results in liquidation – and with lenders reluctant to provide new money, even in exchange for superpriority and/or priming liens, total collapse became an increasingly common result.

Deadlines for the Filing of Proofs of Claims In the Chrysler and Lear Bankruptcies Have Been Set

1. Deadline Relating to Chrysler Bankruptcy:

An opinion issued earlier this year by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. (Bankr. Del., No. 08-11525; January 9, 2009) may end much of the practice of so-called “triangular setoffs” by creditors in bankruptcy cases. The Court in SemCrude found that creditors violate section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code by setting off amounts among multiple debtors, even when exercising contractual assignment rights. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching impact given the dearth of case law on this fairly common contractual provision.

In the recent heyday of real estate and structured finance, the use of “bankruptcy–remote” special purpose entities (SPEs) as borrowers was a fundamental underwriting requirement by lenders in many loans, and a critical factor considered by ratings agencies, to shield lenders and their collateral from the potentially adverse impact of bankruptcy filings by their borrowers’ parents and siblings.

On August 11, 2009, in a long-anticipated ruling in the Chapter 11 case of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP), the court denied the motions to dismiss that had been brought on behalf of several of the property-level lenders.1 Few, if any, observers expected that the court would grant these motions and actually dismiss any of the individual SPE borrowers from the larger GGP bankruptcy, as doing so would have likely opened the door for the other secured lenders to seek dismissal.

As the automotive industry continues to restructure, whether through self-liquidation or government intervention, suppliers will inevitably be confronted with many of the same issues prevalent 4-5 years ago, including a supplier’s obligation to continue to provide goods post-petition and the supplier’s rights to adequate assurance as a condition to such shipment.

On August 11, a United States bankruptcy judge denied motions to dismiss the Chapter 11 cases of 21 special purpose entity (“SPE”) subsidiaries (the “Subject Debtors”) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”). A final order denying the motions was entered on August 28. The decision raises a number of issues, primarily with respect to the role of independent managers, that are of particular interest to the commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) industry.

Lessons from the GGP Cases

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that an environmental clean-up obligation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, even when the debtor no longer has any internal clean-up operations and would have to contract a third party to provide such services at significant cost.

On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.