Last week, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) filed two new motions in its ongoing Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court litigation against approximately 130 loan originators and brokers: (1) an Omnibus Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaints Pursuant to Rule 7015 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint”); and (2) a Motion for Leave to Amend and Extend the Scope of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Orders for Indemnification Claims of the Debtors against Mortgage Loan Sellers (“ADR Motion”).
HERE LIONS ROAM: CISG AS THE MEASURE OF A CLAIM'S
VALUE AND VALIDITY AND A DEBTOR'S
DISCHARGEABILITY
Amir Shachmurove*
INTRODUCTION ............................................ ..... 463
I. A COMEDY OF ERRORS .............. 468
II. RELEVANT BANKRUPTCY LAW: THE CODE AND THE RULES ............ 470
A. Code and Rules .......................... ......... 470
B. Determination of a Claim 's Validity and Value .............. 471
C. Temporary Valuation Pursuant to Rule 3018(a) .... ........ 475
Bankruptcy
Legal Alert
Authors
George P. Angelich Partner New York, NY 212.457.5423 [email protected]
M. Douglas Flahaut Counsel Los Angeles, CA 213.443.7559 [email protected]
In In re Nine West Holdings, Inc., the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overruled the U.S.
In the recent case of In Re Todd, No. 15-11083 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. March 23, 2018), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York held that a debtor’s inherited Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) is property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate and consequently not exempt from creditors under New York law.
An accounting firm in the United States must produce workpapers to a chapter 15 foreign representative even if the law where the foreign main proceeding is pending would not permit such production. CohnReznick LLP v. Foreign Representatives of Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P. (In re Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P.), No. 18-5176 (DLC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109684 (S.D.N.Y June 29, 2018).
Although the legal community eagerly awaits the California Supreme Court’s decision on advance waivers in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Mfg. (Cal. No. S232946), a recent decision in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of In re: Relativity Media, LLC, has addressed similar issues and provides some guidance.
Market participants invest billions of dollars each year in debt, secured and unsecured. The credit support for the debt would be illusory without carefully crafted covenants that prevent the company from selling or transferring its assets outside the reach of creditors. Reliance on these covenants is critical for investors.
The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a foreclosing plaintiff summary judgment and held that plaintiff did not need to send a 90-day notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 because plaintiff was not a lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer. SeeNIC Holding Corp. v. Eisenegger, 59 Misc. 3d 1221(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018). In the case, one of plaintiff’s employees was relocating and defendant wanted to purchase the employee’s home.
In Citibank, N.A., London Branch v Oceanwood Opportunities Master Fund and others, the English High Court recently addressed what constitutes “control” for purposes of the disenfranchisement clause ubiquitous in New York law indentures. While the Court determined that “control” is necessarily a fact-based question to be viewed in light of the particular circumstances, the judgment offers several helpful conclusions which will be good news to any lenders having or seeking control positions in note tranches.
Facts of the case