InIn Re Lexington Hospitality Group, LLC, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky thwarted a lender’s efforts to control whether its borrower could file bankruptcy. As a condition to the loan, the lender mandated that the borrower’s operating agreement have certain provisions that require the affirmative vote of an “Independent Manager” and 75% of the members to authorize a bankruptcy.

When a shipper files bankruptcy, it’s generally not good news for a motor carrier. However, motor carriers are often in a unique position that might allow them to do better than fellow creditors from other industries, recovering some or all of the unpaid pre-petition debt, while continuing to do business and get paid on a post-petition basis. Although under a bit more scrutiny since a federal circuit court decision in In re Kmart Corp., 359 F.3d 866 (7th Cir.

The Supreme Court two years ago ruled in Baker Botts v. Asarco that bankruptcy professionals entitled to compensation from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate had no statutory right to be compensated for time spent defending against objections to their fee applications.

In In re Spanish Peaks Holdings II, LLC, Case No. 15-35572 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a bankruptcy trustee may use Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code to sell real property free and clear of unexpired leases without affording the non-debtor lessees the right to retain possession of the property.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a case based on a final foreclosure order entered in Texas state court, and that the borrowers’ due process rights were not violated where the state court entered a foreclosure order without first having a hearing, in violation of the state statute. 

Ultra court clarifies the requirements for classifying a creditor as “unimpaired” under a plan of reorganization.

Key Points:

• Texas bankruptcy court splits from Third Circuit in finding that a creditor must receive everything it is entitled to under non-bankruptcy law in order for the creditor to be “unimpaired.”

• The decision does not require that unsecured creditors receive post-petition interest but provides that they will be “impaired” if they do not

One overarching certainty of federal debt collection law seems to be prolonged uncertainty over its appropriate scope. Is this scope about to change yet again? One recent bill called the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act of 2017, H.R. 1849, seeks to do just that.

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) often plays an active role in larger, more complex business bankruptcy cases. But what right, if any, does a UCC have to intervene in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding? The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this very issue in Assured Guaranty Corp., et al. v. The Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico, et. al., 17-1831 (1st Cir. Sept. 22, 2017) (“Financial Oversight”) and ultimately held that a UCC does have such a right.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that where the beneficiary of a land trust filed a motion to intervene in a foreclosure, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene because the beneficiary filed the motion after the trial court had entered the order confirming the foreclosure sale.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to the Opinion.

Undersecured creditors face unique challenges because they are neither fully secured nor fully unsecured. Beyond the obviously undesirable issue of being upside-down on their deal, undersecured creditors often are exposed to preference liability for those payments they received in the 90 days prior to the debtor filing bankruptcy. This is especially true where an aggressive trustee is looking to create value or where an opportunistic trustee sees a chance to make a quick buck.