In In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed that claims filed by Lehman employees on account of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are subject to subordination under section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In order to file for bankruptcy in the United States, a company needs to secure the appropriate corporate authorizations as required by its governing documents. What happens when a debtor does not obtain appropriate authorization to file its bankruptcy case? Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held in In re Tara Retail Group, LLC that an improper bankruptcy filing can be ratified when those who are required to authorize the filing remain silent.

Background

In In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. 855 F.3d 459 (2d Cir. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court order subordinating the claims of former Lehman Bros.

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. June 20, 2017)

Permissive Abstention:

On April 3, 2017 the Suffolk County Supreme Court granted Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s motion for summary judgment to recover defaulted mortgage payments in a potentially trailblazing foreclosure decision.  Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. MacPherson, 2017 NY Slip Op 27120 (Sup. Ct. Suff. Co.

Because the number of unsatisfied clients who find themselves in bankruptcy are filing malpractice lawsuits against their pre-bankruptcy counsel is on the rise so, too, is the number of attorneys who find themselves on the defending end of such claims. Debtors and Trustees pursuing such claims, as well as attorneys defending against a bankruptcy debtor’s malpractice lawsuit, should consider the pros and cons of adjudicating these claims through an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court or via a state court action outside the bankruptcy realm.

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Florida law, recently held that a professional services exclusion, which excluded coverage for any loss arising out of any insured’s performance of professional services, barred coverage for claims arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme. Stettin v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2017 WL 2858768 (11th Cir. July 5, 2017).

In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently concluded that Michigan’s assignment of rents statute sufficiently deprived the assignor of the ownership of the rents such that the rents could not be included in the assignor’s bankruptcy estate.