The Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law has been amended effective as of October 29, 2009, by adding new protections for occupants of dwelling units1 in properties that are in foreclosure. These protections will apply to projects which were rental housing from the outset, and to for-sale housing projects in which units are being rented pending sale or which have been converted to rental housing.  

Notice to Occupants by Receivers and Mortgagees in Possession

On June 17, 2009, the Seventh Circuit examined the tax practitioner privilege in Valero Energy Corporation v. U.S., 103 AFTR 2d 2009-2683. Valero, a large oil refiner, expanded its operations in 2001 by acquiring Ultra Diamond Shamrock Corporation (“UDS”). Prior to the acquisition, Ernst & Young developed a restructuring and refinancing plan for UDS’s Canadian subsidiaries. Valero asked its tax advisors, Arthur Anderson, to review the plan and provide additional tax advice.

It seems safe to assume that no lender would extend high-dollar credit without first having a deep knowledge of the party accepting the funds. Certainly, such deep knowledge would include the precise legal name of that borrower. Nevertheless, recent cases continue to demonstrate the prevalence of filing UCC-1 financing statements that may be deemed “seriously misleading” as to the name of the debtor and, therefore, ineffective to fix the secured creditor’s place in the chain of priority.

On October 25, commercial real estate financing company Capmark Financial Group Inc., together with over 40 of its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The debtors cite among the reasons for their filing the declined values of their loan portfolio, tightening of credit markets and a heavy debt burden. Capmark, formerly a part of GMAC's residential mortgage business until 2006, listed $20.1 billion in assets and $21 billion in liabilities on its petition.

Filing a successful proof of claim is the key to unlocking a creditor's right to recover against a debtor in bankruptcy. Only in limited circumstances may a creditor recover against the debtor's estate without properly filing a proof of claim. This article addresses the various stages of filing, attacking and defending a proof of claim.

After more than a decade of rising real estate values, the tide has turned against commercial and development real estate, prompting major builders and developers to commence Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) in 2005, many Chapter 11 cases that revolve around real estate will fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of single asset real estate (SARE) cases and are thus subject to special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.1 As a result, it is now time to think about SARE.

In this case, the Court of Chancery found that it would not impose or order remedies, whether legal or equitable, for the plaintiff’s claims pertaining to membership in, and wrongful dissolution of, American Asset Recovery, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), because the plaintiff did not prove the extent of the remedies to which he was entitled.

Introduction

Summary

The FDIC has adopted final rules which provide that the FDIC, as receiver of a covered financial company, may recover from senior executives and directors who were substantially responsible for the failed condition of the company any compensation they received during the two-year period preceding the date on which the FDIC was appointed as receiver, or for an unlimited period in the case of fraud.