Introduction
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a stern warning to professional services providers regarding “tail fees,” establishing a presumption of unreasonableness against contract terms requiring fees not attached to tangible, identifiable and material benefits to the debtor’s estate.
In a decision of significance to the distressed claims trading community, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re KB Toys Inc.[1] recently held that any risk or “cloud” of disallowance under the Bankruptcy Code resulting from a creditor’s receipt of an avoidable transfer cannot be separated from a claim, even when such claim is in the possession of a subsequent transferee.
On August 11, the Honorable Allan L. Gropper issued an opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of several property-specific special purpose subsidiaries (SPE Debtors), including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc.
The City of Detroit filed for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 18, 2013,1 becoming the largest municipality to ever file for bankruptcy. Detroit’s bankruptcy filing presents numerous complicated issues, which will be resolved over the course of the case.
On August 11, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases filed by debtors, including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The movants, including special servicers of the CMBS issued by GGP, based their dismissal motions primarily on a claim that the debtor’s cases were filed in bad faith.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently resolved a split within the circuit when it held that a bankruptcy court has the power to recharacterize debt as equity.
The court overseeing the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and various subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), has entered an order establishing deadlines and procedures for filing claims against the Debtors. In terms of procedural requirements, the order places unusual burdens on parties whose claims are based on derivative contracts and guarantees.
California’s AB 506 process was intended to help a municipality in restructuring its debt obligations and avoid bankruptcy. However, the lessons of the bankruptcies of the City of Stockton, the Town of Mammoth Lakes and the City of San Bernardino support the reality that a meaningful restructure requires material involvement by the major stakeholders. California’s recent wave of municipal bankruptcies tend to show that the AB 506 process has not changed this reality, but rather made a difficult process longer and more arduous.
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.