In a decision entirely consistent with its ruling in the “Perpetual” adversary proceeding last year, on May 12, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Lehman chapter 11 cases endorsed a strict interpretation of certain Bankruptcy Code provisions to the benefit of Lehman, which will result in Lehman having more leverage in its negotiations with derivatives counterparties. See Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Trustee, Adv. Proc. 09-01032 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011).
A bankruptcy court in Delaware has ruled that a debtor’s CERCLA claims are “non-core” claims that fall outside the administration of the estate in bankruptcy. NEC Holdings Corp. v. Linde LLC, No. 10-11890 (Bankr. D. Del.
- Learn About Your Client and the Debtor.
Before you accept a collection case, make sure you know your client’s business and the debtor’s business.
A U.S. bankruptcy court has held that the tolling provisions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allowing for extensions of the time to file actions are automatically available to foreign representatives trying to marshal assets for distribution to creditors in crossborder cases.
Summary
In an 11 page opinion published May 18, 2011, Judge Shannon ruled that, in the context of a motion to dismiss, the officer of a corporation, which is itself a contractor, is not also a contractor by virtue of her position within the corporation. Judge Shannon’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Background
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. (May 11, 2011)
Judge Carey released an order amending his Memorandum Opinion dated May 10, 2011 in the New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy. His previous opinion had misstated the amount of a settlement between the two parties in the adversary proceeding which gave rise to the opinion.
The enduring impact of the Great Recession on businesses, individuals, municipalities, and even sovereign nations has figured prominently in world headlines during the last three years. Comparatively absent from the lede, however, has been the plight of charitable and other nonprofit entities that depend in large part on the largesse of donors who themselves have been less able or less willing to provide eleemosynary institutions with badly needed sources of capital in the current economic climate.
In order to identify the appropriate cramdown rate of interest which allows a secured creditor to receive the “present value” of its claim through a stream of payments proposed in a plan, such analysis must necessarily begin with the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004).
Over the past five years, courts have issued rulings of potential concern to buyers of distressed debt. Courts have addressed, among other things, “loan to own” acquisition strategies resulting in vote designation; equitable subordination, disallowance, and other lender liability exposure based upon the claim seller’s misconduct; disclosure requirements for ad hoc committees of debtholders; the adequacy of standardized claims-trading agreements; and claim-filing requirements in the era of computerized records.