On August 11, 2009, in one of the most significant rulings to date in the GGP bankruptcy proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court denied motions to dismiss as bad faith filings the bankruptcy cases of 20 GGP property-level subsidiaries. In denying the motions, the court stated that the fundamental creditor protections negotiated in the special purpose entity structures at the property level are in place and will remain in place during the pendency of the chapter 11 cases.

On August 11, the Honorable Allan L. Gropper issued an opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of several property-specific special purpose subsidiaries (SPE Debtors), including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc.

In a decision made on August 11, 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed solvent, special purpose entity subsidiaries of a bankrupt parent company, General Growth Properties, Inc., to maintain their Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, raising several important issues related to the use of special purpose entities structured to be "bankruptcy-remote."

GGP Business Model and 2009 Bankruptcy Filings

A fundamental component in the commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") market is the lender's reliance that the loan is made to a "bankruptcy remote" special purpose entity ("SPE"). The loan documents and operating agreements relating to an SPE typically require that the SPE maintain separate existence and contain restrictions that limit the SPE's debt and ensure separateness.

Many companies secured their financing several years ago when the credit market featured advantageous pricing and loose loan covenants. Because these favorable terms would be impossible for borrowers to obtain in today’s lending environment, many viable companies with highly leveraged capital structures are looking for strategies to remove debt and, at the same time, to preserve, or “reinstate,” the favorable financing deals they secured before the markets crashed.

Introduction

On June 28th, the Second Circuit held that payments made by Enron to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity were not avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the Court answers in the affirmative an issue of first impression among the appellate courts: whether the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 546(e), which shields settlement payments from avoidance in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer's payments to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that redemptions of commercial paper made through the Depositary Trust Company (DTC) are entitled to the “safe harbor” protections afforded to settlement payments under Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), and are, therefore, not preferential transfers, even though such payments were made prior to maturity.1 The Second Circuit is the first Circuit Court of Appeal to address the issue, which arises out of the Enron bankruptcy case.

Legal Framework

The Bottom Line:

DBSD Case Upholds Designation of Votes Cast By a Claims Purchaser