The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on July 15, 2008, that a major creditor with a seat on the debtor’s board of directors and a 10.6% equity interest was not an insider in a bankruptcy preference suit. In re U.S. Medical, Inc., 2008 WL2736658 (10th Cir. 7/15/08).
On September 7, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, and announced (i) Treasury’s entry into a Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement with each Government Sponsored Entity (GSE), (ii) the creation of a Government Sponsored Entity Credit Facility (GSECF), and (iii) the adoption of a GSE Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Purchase Program.
On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("Lehman Holdings") filed for Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 08-13555). None of Lehman Holdings’ U.S. subsidiaries have filed for bankruptcy at this point. In addition, while Lehman Holdings has certain subsidiaries that are regulated entities (e.g., banks, insurance companies, etc.), none of those entities has yet been placed into any kind of insolvency proceeding by the applicable regulators.
In In re Bryan Road LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida considered whether a waiver of the automatic stay provision included in a prepetition workout agreement is enforceable in the debtor’s subsequent bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court enforced the waiver and held the creditor was not bound by the automatic stay after engaging in a four-factor analysis of the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution. The Bankruptcy Court cautioned, however, that relief from stay provisions are neither per se enforceable nor self-executing.
Over the past few days, Members of Congress have engaged in intensive debate over the terms of the bailout package, now commonly referred to as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). Both Democrats and Republicans have offered criticisms and alternatives to the original Treasury proposal which are summarized below.
Senator Dodd Proposal
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs has drafted a 100 page bill that encompasses many of the Democratic proposals discussed to date. His bill would:
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a mortgage purchaser’s Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay of Chapter 13 proceedings on the ground that the purchaser lacked standing where it could not provide documentary evidence showing each transfer of the mortgage. In re Robin Hayes, Case No. 07-13967-JNF (August 19, 2008).
In November 2004, the Debtor, Robin Hayes, obtained a $324,000 mortgage from Argent Mortgage Company LLC (“Argent Mortgage”). The mortgage subsequently was sold and ultimately ended up with Deutsche Bank.
While some states have mandated delays to the foreclosure process, curbing the number of foreclosure filings in recent months, many report that such legislation is only a temporary cure. Foreclosure filings include default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions. According to James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac, October marked the 34th consecutive month where U.S. foreclosure activity increased compared to the prior year. RealtyTrac U.S.
A federal bankruptcy court, applying New York law, has dismissed an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion. Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Case No. 07-11880 (CSS) (Jointly Administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 15, 2008). The court also held that the coverage dispute was a non-core proceeding.
A recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appears to have further raised the hurdle to equitably subordinate claims. Continuing what appears to be a move toward a narrower interpretation of equitable subordination, the Seventh Circuit held that misconduct alone does not provide sufficient justification to equitably subordinate a claim; injury to the interests of other creditors is required as well.