On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553, (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).
In a recent opinion, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a secured lender’s right to credit-bid at a bankruptcy sale of assets encumbered by such lender’s liens. In addition to solidifying the rights and protections afforded to a secured creditor in bankruptcy, the Supreme Court lessened some of the uncertainty associated with the acquisition strategy by which a potential buyer purchases claims secured by the targeted assets of a troubled company and seeks to exercise such secured creditor’s rights as to such assets.
The Bottom Line:
On June 13, 2012, the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Texas in In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Vitro SAB”) declined to recognize and enforce an order issued by the Federal District Court for Civil and Labor Matters for the State of León, Mexico, which approved Vitro SAB’s reorganization plan in its Mexican insolvency proceeding (known as a concurso mercantil proceeding). Vitro S.A.B. v. ACP Master Fund, Ltd., et al. (In re Vitro S.A.B.), Case No. 11–33335 (HDH), 2012 WL 2138112 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June 13, 2012).
Between 2008 and 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) revisited the circumstances under which it would approve third-party non-debtor releases in Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. Traditionally, the Second Circuit found such releases to be appropriate if the bankruptcy case had certain special — “unique” — circumstances.1 InIn re Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52 (2d. Cir.
Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory. An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured. Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on May 29, 2012, finding that a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of liquidation is not confirmable over a secured lender’s objection if such plan prohibits the lender from credit bidding at a sale of its collateral.1 See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, 566 U.S. ___ (2012).
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a debtor cannot confirm a Chapter 11 “cramdown” plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of a secured creditor’s lien when it denies the secured creditor’s right to credit bid at the auction. This should be welcome news to members of the secured lending community because guaranteeing the right of secured creditors to credit bid will reduce the risk of making such loans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a paragraph in an asset purchase agreement qualified as an amendment to an employee benefit plan, highlighting a split between circuits of the U.S. Courts of Appeal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bankruptcy code provides protection and relief to individuals facing insurmountable debt, but it carries certain obligations and limitations, notably requiring them to list all of their assets, including any claims or potential claims on the schedule of personal assets. As bankruptcy courts and creditors rely on the debtor's sworn representations to order a discharge of debt, a plaintiff who failed to disclose those claims in a prior or pending bankruptcy action has no standing to later pursue the non-disclosed claims and receive a windfall recovery free and clear of obligat