Having enforceable security over all of a borrower’s assets is obviously of primary importance to a lender. However, where a borrower occupies leased premises, ensuring the lender has quick and reliable access to the collateral is equally important, especially if the landlord proves to be unco-operative after a borrower’s default. Although court-ordered access to a borrower’s leased premises can be sought after a borrower’s loan default, a landlord waiver obtained prior to an initial advance of a loan can bring some added certainty to the realization process outside of a bankrup
formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.
What happens to funds held by a Chapter 13 trustee (the “Trustee”) in the event that a Chapter 13 debtor dismisses her case voluntarily? That’s the question that was addressed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “Court”) in a recent opinion.1
In this case, the Chapter 13 debtor (the “Debtor”) owned a residence with significant equity. The Court confirmed a plan pursuant to which the Debtor would retain her residence and make monthly payments to the Trustee in the amount of $8,500.75 for 60 months.
Two items of interest in the on-going saga of intellectual property enforcement against bankrupt Collezione Europa and its principals, Paul and Leonard Frankel.
In re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P., 2012 BL 140988 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The creditor appealed the denial of its claim for pre-petition interest at the contractual default rate. The district court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the bankruptcy court had incorrectly applied an "equitable analysis" in making its decision.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND