Creditors often consider filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition against their financially distressed debtors. Before using this extraordinary remedy, a creditor should evaluate whether it will achieve a valid business objective. Additionally, each creditor should evaluate whether there is a valid basis to support the filing. When the debtor's bankruptcy is appropriate, it can be a valuable step in maximizing a creditor's recovery. But the stakes are high.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of Chapter 15 protection for the U.S. assets of two Cayman Islands hedge funds (the “Funds”) (previously reported in SRZ’s Sept. 19, 2007, Alert, “Cayman Hedge Funds Liquidators’ Request for Chapter 15 Protection Denied by Bankruptcy Court”). See Civ. Case No. 07-8730 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2008) (the “Decision”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that insiders who control the operations of a debtor owe a duty, as fiduciaries, to refrain from self-dealing. In re Brook Valley VII, Joint Venture (Lange v. Schropp), 496 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2007). The controlling insiders of two Chapter 11 debtors had thus breached their fiduciary duties to the debtors when they caused the debtors to consent to a foreclosure sale of estate properties and then secretly purchased the properties for themselves at the sale.

A “federal [fraudulent transfer claim under Bankruptcy Code § 548] is independent of [a] state-court [foreclosure] judgment,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Dec. 27, 2021. In reLowry, 2021 WL 6112972, *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021). Reversing the lower courts’ approval of a Michigan tax foreclosure sale, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “the amount paid on foreclosure bore no relation at all to the value of the property, thus precluding the … argument that the sale was for ‘a reasonably equivalent value’ under the rule of BFP v.

The Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “requires the use of replacement value rather than a hypothetical [foreclosure] value … that the reorganization is designed to avoid,” held a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 26, 2017.

“[T]he debtor … did not retain sufficient rights in the assigned rents under Michigan law for those rents to be included in the bankruptcy estate,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 2, 2017. In re Town Center Flats LLC, 201 U.S. App. LEXIS 7733, *2 (6th Cir. May 2, 2017). Relying on Michigan law and the language of the relevant documents, the court reversed the bankruptcy court’s holding that gave the Chapter 11 debtor access to the assigned rents as operating funds during its reorganization.

Relevance

A secured lender had to “pay the [encumbered] Property’s maintenance expenses incurred while the [bankruptcy] trustee was trying to sell the Property,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Dec. 29, 2015. In re Domistyle, Inc., 2015 WL 9487732, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2015).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on June 23, 2014 that an oversecured lender’s legal fees were subject to the bankruptcy court’s review for reasonableness despite a court-ordered non-judicial foreclosure sale of the lender’s collateral. In re 804 Congress, LLC, ­­__ F.3d ­­__, 2014 WL 2816521 (5th Cir. June 23, 2014). Affirming the bankruptcy court’s power and reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit found the lender’s utter failure to detail its legal fees with any documentary support to be fatal.

Facts

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”).

In a decision to be hailed by buyers of distressed debt and bankruptcy claims on the secondary loan market, on Oct. 15, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in a fact-specific ruling, held that an assignment of claim does not violate New York’s champerty statute (forbidding trading in litigation claims) if the purpose of the assignment is to collect damages by means of a lawsuit for losses on a debt instrument in which the assignee holds a pre-existing proprietary interest. Trust for the Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.