Creditors have recently made some headway in collecting the full amount to which they are contractually entitled pursuant to various debt instruments. In In re Calpine Corp.,1 reported in our summer 2007 newsletter, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted a secured creditor to collect damages (albeit in the form of an unsecured claim) caused by dashed expectations due to the early repayment of its debt.

In UPS Capital Business Credit v. Gencarelli (In re Gencarelli),1 the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a secured creditor is entitled to collect a prepayment penalty from a solvent debtor. The Court found that the secured creditor could collect the penalty, whether or not it is reasonable, so long as the penalty is enforceable under state law. The Court reasoned that any other holding would leave open the possibility that an unsecured creditor could recover more from a solvent estate than a secured creditor.

Background

A recent decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York underscores the risk to junior creditors of not understanding fully the scope of consent given to a senior creditor to modify its senior lending arrangements with a debtor under the terms of an intercreditor agreement. In Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. v.

In a recent adversary proceeding brought by a chapter 7 trustee to recharacterize a creditor’s claim from a debt claim to an equity interest, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina denied a creditor’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim where the trustee had alleged that the lender assumed control over the corporation after the date of the credit agreement.

In In re Entringer Bakeries, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the viability of the “earmarking doctrine” as a judicially-created defense to a preference action under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Debt-for-debt exchanges are not new, but are worth revisiting given the current economic climate. Furthermore, the recently enacted "Stimulus Act"1 provides some temporary relief to debtors from potentially harsh tax consequences of restructuring. The following discussion is relevant to issuers (also referred to as debtors) or holders (also referred to as creditors) of debt who are "US persons" (as defined in the US Internal Revenue Code).2

In order to illustrate some of the key US federal income tax consequences of a debt-for-debt exchange, consider the following example:

On April 16, General Growth Properties, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (“GGP”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. GGP operates a national network of approximately 200 shopping centers. To the surprise of many, most of GGP’s property-specific SPE subsidiaries (“SPE Debtors”) also filed for bankruptcy.

Metropolitan Insurance Company has joined ING Clarion Capital Loan Services, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and FRM Funding Company, Inc in requesting the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss as bad faith filings the bankruptcy cases of twenty-one property level CMBS borrower subsidiaries of General Growth Properties, Inc. ING filed the first motion on May 4th with respect to eight debtors, and a hearing was set for May 27th. That hearing was subsequently adjourned to June 17th. Creditors having similar motions to be heard on June 17th were required to file their motions to dismiss by May 29th .

The current economic recession has, not surprisingly, led to a significant downturn in the domestic gaming industry. During 2008, revenue growth in the U.S. gaming industry turned negative for the first time in four years. Data for the first quarter of 2009 indicate that the monthly gaming revenues of casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City declined more than 15% as compared to the first quarter of last year.1 Public gaming company stock prices are down more than 80% on average, and many gaming companies have postponed or canceled development projects.

In Hutson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.