In a previous Financial Services Flash, we brought to your attention the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in the case ofIn re Tousa. In a decision that raised serious concerns for lenders in the United States, Justice Olson held that the first and second ranking secured lenders of Tousa Inc. (“Tousa”) did not act in good faith and were grossly negligent in providing Tousa with a secured loan less than six months before Tousa filed for bankruptcy.
In Hardesty v. CitiFinancial, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of the trustee’s request to avoid the debtors’ mortgages with the creditor based on allegedly defective certificates of acknowledgement in the mortgage documents under Ohio law.
We've all heard of Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, but what is Chapter 9? Chapter 9 provides a municipality protection from its creditors while it develops a plan to resolve or adjust its debts. Adjustment of a municipality's debt involves refinancing such debts to (i) extend the time to pay debt obligations or (ii) reduce the amount of interest on such obligations.
A recent bankruptcy case in Pennsylvania,In re Shubh Hotels Pittsburgh, LLC, 439 B.R. 637 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2010), held that as long as the “debtor-in-possession” exercises its sound business judgment when making its decision, the “debtor-in-possession” can enter into a new 15-year franchise agreement over the objection of the secured lender.
In general, substantive consolidation allows for the assets and liabilities of affiliated debtor entities to be consolidated and disbursed as if the assets were held and the liabilities were owed by a single legal entity. Unlike joint administration, which promotes procedural convenience and efficiency without affecting the substantive rights of creditors, substantive consolidation can force creditors of a solvent debtor to share in the debtors’ aggregate asset pool in parity with creditors of less solvent debtors.
The well known travails of Fred Wilpon, the principal owner of the New York Mets, have all converged this past week. He, his partner Saul Katz and their families and affiliated enterprises (the “Wilpon/Katz Group”) lost several hundred million dollars when Bernard Madoff’s long running Ponzi scheme finally unraveled at the height of the financial crisis in 2008.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a proposed “gifting” plan distributing value from the second lien lenders to the prepetition equity holder violated the absolute priority rule and was confirmed in error.2 This decision, by a 2-1 panel vote,3 reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and District Courts for the Southern District of New York. The Second Circuit also affirmed unanimously the designation of the vote of an indirect competitor of the debtor that held no claims prior to the petition date.
A theme running through many apparent-authority cases is the question of who loses: for example, the LLC whose property was used to secure unauthorized, personal borrowings by a member or manager, or the bank that in good faith made the loan to the malefactor? Often the recipient of the funds has used the money for personal matters and is essentially judgment proof.
Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an automatic stay goes into effect which provides a debtor with immediate protection from collection efforts by creditors. But the automatic stay is not without limitations.