“Transaction fees are part of the standard, negotiated base compensation for the investment banker,” held the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 16, 2016. In re Relativity Fashion, LLC, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 4339, *10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) (Wiles, B.J.). The court denied objections to the transaction fees sought by two investment bankers, P and H, ruling that the objecting parties (a fee examiner, the debtor and a secured lender) had no right under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 328(a) to challenge the transaction fees. Id. at *25.

From December 15-21, 2016, the Seal123, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed approximately 68 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 544 and/or 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Liquidation Trust also seek to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Investors Bank v. Trylon/Crest Construction, Inc., 2016 WL 5922751 (N.J. App. Div. Oct. 12, 2016), the Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s discharge of a rent receiver over the defendant’s objection that the receiver was required to make certain payments to the defendant. In October 2008, the defendant borrowed $5,200,000 from the plaintiff, Investors Bank (the “Bank”), secured by a first mortgage on property owned by the defendant. In addition, the mortgage granted the Bank the right to have a rent receiver appointed for the property.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a bank’s lawsuit against the husband of a debtor who had filed for bankruptcy did not violate the co-debtor stay because the husband’s credit card debts were not a consumer debt for which the debtor was personally liable.

Recent changes to New York’s foreclosure statutory scheme are set to go into effect on December 20, 2016. These wide-ranging revisions include the following amendments:

(7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 27, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the creditor’s non-dischargeability complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). The creditor conceded that the debt was based on a breach of contract claim. However, the creditor alleged the debt was converted to a non-dischargeable debt based on the debtor’s post-judgment efforts to avoid collection. The court finds that the creditor failed to state a claim in part because the alleged behavior did not result in the debt sought to be declared non-dischargeable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(N.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the stay to permit the creditor to proceed with the real property foreclosure action. The debtor failed to provide factual or legal support for his claims of fraud by the creditor. Opinion below.

Judge: Miller

Plaintiff: Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Jordan S. Huttenlocker, Louis S. Chronowski

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2016)

The receipt of make-whole premiums, including during a bankruptcy after acceleration of the notes, is of paramount importance to noteholders. Decisions in some recent cases in New York and Delaware bankruptcy and federal district courts have held that note purchase agreements or indentures must include an express agreement that the make-whole premium (or similar prepayment premium) is payable upon acceleration (rather than prepayment) after the filing of a bankruptcy proceeding. In the recent Momentive decision (In re MPM Silicones, LLC), for example, the U.S.