In a ruling that has been described as “very important” and the “first decision of its kind,” bankruptcy judge Shelley C. Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on April 1, 2011, in In re Innkeepers USA Trust, 2011 WL 1206173 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

A recent New York bankruptcy case holds that the Bankruptcy Code's limitations on using avoidance actions to undo securities transactions did not apply where the underlying transactions did not implicate the public securities market. A debtor or bankruptcy trustee has the power and obligation to recover transfers made by the debtor, prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case, that were either actually or constructively fraudulent. There are, however, certain enumerated limitations to this power.

In re Ebadi, No. 10-73702, 2011 WL 1257211 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. March 30, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a proposed “gifting” plan distributing value from the second lien lenders to the prepetition equity holder violated the absolute priority rule and was confirmed in error.2 This decision, by a 2-1 panel vote,3 reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and District Courts for the Southern District of New York. The Second Circuit also affirmed unanimously the designation of the vote of an indirect competitor of the debtor that held no claims prior to the petition date.

In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).

In a May 4, 2015, decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected secured lenders’ appeals of a controversial bankruptcy court decision confirming the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of MPM Silicones, LLC (also known as “Momentive”). The district court opinion, by Judge Vincent Briccetti, affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision that Momentive’s senior secured lenders could be “crammed down” at a below-market interest rate, without payment of a make-whole premium.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.

Judge Vincent Bricetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the Momentive Performance Materialscases affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation rulings on Monday, May 4.  Key themes raised in this case of interest to distressed investors and addressed in Judge Bricetti’s ruling include the appropriate interpretation of

Two recent decisions from large and highly contested chapter 11 cases add to the developing body of case law on the treatment of make-whole claims in bankruptcy.  First, in a two-part post, we discuss the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware’s decision in Energy Future Holdings, and later, in a follow-up post, we discuss the United States District Court for the Southern District of

© 2015 Hunton & Williams LLP 1 May 2015 Oak Rock Financial District Court Addresses the Applicable Legal Standard for True Participation Agreements The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently applied two tests, the True Participation Test and the Disguised Loan Test, to determine whether agreements were true participation agreements or disguised loans.1 In addition, the District Court noted that the most important question in such a determination is the risk of loss allocation in the transaction, and that if an alleged participant is not subject to the