CR&B Alert
Commercial Restructuring & Bankruptcy News
In This Issue:
• Consequences of the Failure of a Secured
Creditor to File a Timely Proof of Claim—2
• Private Equity Funds Potentially Liable for
Portfolio Company’s Unfunded Pension
Liability—2
• Make-Whole Payment Not ‘Unmatured
Interest’—3
• Tax Status of Q-Sub Debtor Not Estate
Property; Debtor Has No Standing to Challenge
Parent’s Sub-S Revocation—3
• Don’t Let Excess Insurers Avoid Coverage
Based on Settlements or Bankruptcy—4

On October 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a Seventh Circuit decision¹ in the Castleton Plaza, LP case, which held that a new value plan proposed by the debtor in which an equity-holder’s spouse would provide a cash infusion to the debtor in exchange for 100 percent of the reorganiz

In the first appellate court decision on the issue, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that trade claims subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are disallowable “no matter who holds them.”¹ In In re KB Toys Inc., the Third Circuit affirmed Bankruptcy and District Court decisions holding that trade claims subject to disallowance in the hands of an original claimant remain disallowable in the hands of a subsequent transferee.

The U.S. Constitution enjoins each state to accord “full faith and credit” to “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State”. U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1. However, a judgment creditor can’t directly enforce a judgment obtained in another state in California. The other state’s judgment must first be turned into a California judgment. The statutory mechanism for effecting this is the Sister State and Foreign Money—Judgments Act, aka the SSFMJA, Code Civ. Proc. § 1710.10 et seq.

Major creditors of the city of Detroit filed a request in the bankruptcy proceeding to hasten the process of evaluating the value of the collection of theDetroit Institute of Arts.

InLewis v. Eberle & BCI Services, LLC, 2013 WL 4483529 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2013), a New Jersey district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act because she failed to disclose them as “assets” in a simultaneous bankruptcy proceeding. The plaintiff was engaged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings when she filed suit against her former employer, but she did not revise her bankruptcy petition to identify those claims.

In In re KB Toys,¹ a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a claim that is disallowable under § 502(d)² if held by the original claimant is also disallowable in the hands of a purchaser or subsequent transferee. In other words, if a creditor sells or assigns its claim to a claims trader and the creditor later becomes liable on a preference or fraudulent transfer,³ the claim may be disallowed in the hands of the claims trader if the creditor fails to pay the amount it owes to the estate.

Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code provides, subject to certain exceptions, that the Bankruptcy Code “does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such creditor to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case.” Debts are considered “mutual” when they are due to and from the same persons or entities in the same capacity.

Few areas of law are as confusing—or as important to understand—as the growing
intersection of employment and bankruptcy law. In recent years, funding shortfalls
in multi-employer pension plans, which cover roughly 20 percent of U.S. workers
with defined-benefit plans, have increased pressure on participating employers
to reduce their contributions or even withdraw entirely. Although employers taking
these actions would incur withdrawal liability as a consequence, that liability can

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Residential Capital (“ResCap”) cases issued an opinion on November 15, 2013 (the “Opinion”)2 allowing the unamortized interest associated with original issue discount (“OID”) that was generated in a fair market value exchange and claimed by ResCap’s junior secured noteholders (the “Holders”). While the OID ruling is only one component of the Opinion,3 it may have far reaching implications, as already evidenced in the pricing of other OID notes that were the product of fair market value exchanges.