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”).

On May 31, 2009, approximately 30 days after Chrysler Group LLC and affiliated debtors filed for bankruptcy relief, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized the sale of substantially all of Chrysler’s assets to “New Chrysler” – an entity formed by Chrysler and Fiat Automobiles SpA and initially majority-owned by Chrysler’s Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – free and clear of liens, claims and encumbrances under section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Fiat Transaction).

On August 11, 2009, in a long-anticipated ruling in the Chapter 11 case of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP), the court denied the motions to dismiss that had been brought on behalf of several of the property-level lenders.1 Few, if any, observers expected that the court would grant these motions and actually dismiss any of the individual SPE borrowers from the larger GGP bankruptcy, as doing so would have likely opened the door for the other secured lenders to seek dismissal.

On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.

Last month, in a significant ruling in the General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied motions to dismiss, as bad faith filings, the bankruptcy cases of 20 purported bankruptcyremote special purpose entity (“SPE”) subsidiary debtors.1

On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) or any of the other debtors in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases (the Debtors).

Part One of this article, published in the last edition of the Restructuring Review, examined recent developments in the gaming industry, focusing on strategies employed by gaming companies to increase liquidity and avoid insolvency. Part Two focuses on how potential buyers can use the bankruptcy process to purchase gaming facilities, free and clear of prior liens, and describes certain complications inherent in the acquisition of this type of asset.

Acquiring Gaming Facilities through Chapter 11

Sale Process

An opinion issued earlier this year by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in the largest municipal bankruptcy since Orange County has become final.

The BAP decision in the City of Vallejo, California, case became final when the appellant city labor unions voluntarily withdrew their further appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal to the BAP had followed an eight-day bankruptcy court trial over whether Vallejo was eligible to be a chapter 9 debtor. On June 26, 2009, the BAP issued an opinion affirming the bankruptcy court's determination that Vallejo was eligible.

In an area of the law that continues to be active, the federal bankruptcy court in Delaware has once again issued a detailed ruling on the actions of directors and officers leading up to a company's insolvency. Among the notable conclusions are: (1) failure to conduct due diligence before obtaining a loan may support a claim for breach of duty of care; and (2) there is no cause of action for "improvident lending" in Delaware or New Jersey. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Fedders N. Am., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. (In re Fedders N. Am., Inc.), 405 B.R.

Introduction