The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a single asset real estate case on Jan. 19, 2012, reasoning that the debtor’s proposed substitute collateral “was not the indubitable equivalent of the [undersecured lender’s] mortgage.”In re River East Plaza, LLC, 2012 WL 169760, *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 19, 2012) (Posner, J.). In the court’s words, the debtor “wanted [the lender] out of there and decided to seek confirmation of a [reorganization] plan . . .

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.

On April 16, 2009 and April 22, 2009, General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) and certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), including many subsidiaries structured as special purpose entities (the “SPE Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently awarded an oversecured lender post-petition interest on the full amount of its secured claim at the default rate set forth in the lender’s contract (19%) plus compound (PIK) interest up to the aggregate rate of 25% (the maximum rate allowable under New York State usury laws). In re Urban Communicators PCS Limited Partnership, et al., 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4062 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 12/11/07) (Gerber, B.J.).

A debtor’s pre-bankruptcy repurchase of its stock for $150 million was not a fraudulent transfer because the debtor “could have sold off enough of its assets or alternatively obtained sufficient credit to continue its business for the foreseeable future,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 15, 2016. In re Adelphia Communications Corp., 2016 WL3315847, *2 (2d Cir. June 15, 2016). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit stressed that “the issue of adequate capitalization,” the “sole issue presented on appeal ...

A bankruptcy court must dismiss a creditor’s involuntary bankruptcy petition when the debtor has raised a “legitimate basis” for disputing the petitioning creditor’s underlying claim, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 14, 2015. In re TPG Troy, LLC, 2015 WL 4220619, at *5 (2d Cir. July 14, 2015). The Second Circuit also affirmed the bankruptcy court’s award of $513,427 in attorney’s fees and costs to the vindicated debtor under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) Section 303(i)(1). Id. at *6.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on August 5 that a secured lender’s disputed “lien on [the debtor’s] principal asset survived . . . confirmation of [the debtor’s] Chapter 11 . . . reorganization plan” because the lender had not participated in the bankruptcy case.S. White Transportation, Inc. v. Acceptance Loan Co., 2013 WL 3983343, *1,*3 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013). Had the lender participated in the case, the court reasoned, its lien might have been avoided.Id., at *1, citingIn re Ahern Enterprises, Inc., 507 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a Cayman Islands collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) could be a debtor under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and declined to dismiss an involuntary case commenced against the CDO by certain noteholders on the grounds that the notes held by such noteholders were “non-recourse” notes. Below is a discussion of the court’s decision and its potential implications. The decision is currently being appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Oct. 19, 2010, corrected a bankruptcy court’s calculation of a secured lender group’s superpriority administrative claim more than two years after consummation of the debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan. In re SCOPAC et al., F.3d__, 2010 WL 4069525, at *2-3, *5-6 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (Jones, Ch.J.) [“Pacific Lumber II”]; see alsoIn re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229, 242 (5th Cir. 2009) [“Pacific Lumber I”] (plan “substantially consummated within weeks of confirmation”).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”), entered an order on July 2, 2009 (the “Bar Date Order”), establishing September 22, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) as the deadline for the filing of claims against the Debtors (the “Bar Date”).