Yesterday, the bankrupt estate of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman) sued Barclays Capital, Inc.

Bankruptcy courts appear to be increasingly sending state law claims to the district court for final review, as illustrated by a recent decision from the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Texas. In Gomez v. Lone Star National Bank (In re Saenz), Jose Gomez financed his acquisition of a restaurant from Humberto Saenz. When the restaurant failed, Gomez sued his lender and Saenz on various claims, but Saenz filed for bankruptcy protection. The lender then moved for summary judgment against Gomez’s claims for common-law fraud and negligence.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed¹ the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re KB Toys, Inc.,² and held that a claim that is subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in the hands of the original claimant is similarly disallowable when that claim is held by a subsequent transferee because the section is applicable to “claims” rather than “claimants.” This holding is in contrast to a prior decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in

Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc¹ case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.

CIT Group Inc.

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (In reSeaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc.), No. 14-11590 (11th Cir. March 12, 2015), clarifies the circuit’s stance on the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue nonconsensual, non-debtor releases or bar orders and the circumstances under which such bar orders might be appropriate. In addition, the court gave a broad reading of what it means for a plan to have been proposed in good faith.

In an adversary proceeding filed in the American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Delaware bankruptcy court affirmed that triangular setoffs are not allowed under the Bankruptcy Code and cannot be modified by contract or under the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provision. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 11-51851 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 8, 2013). Two contracts were at issue – a swap agreement between a bank and American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.

The two most recent decisions of the Supreme Court involving federal taxes illustrate how a conservative approach to statutory interpretation tends to prevail, but only with great effort, and changing constituencies.

Hall v. United States

On August 11, 2009, in a long-anticipated ruling in the Chapter 11 case of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP), the court denied the motions to dismiss that had been brought on behalf of several of the property-level lenders.1 Few, if any, observers expected that the court would grant these motions and actually dismiss any of the individual SPE borrowers from the larger GGP bankruptcy, as doing so would have likely opened the door for the other secured lenders to seek dismissal.

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (In re Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc.), No. 14-11590 (11th Cir. March 12, 2015), clarifies the circuit’s stance on the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue nonconsensual, non-debtor releases or bar orders and the circumstances under which such bar orders might be appropriate. In addition, the court gave a broad reading of what it means for a plan to have been proposed in good faith.