A recent Delaware bankruptcy court decision1 on the ability of “bankruptcy remote” single-purpose entities emphasizes the complicated nature of the bankruptcy process and the issues that need to be considered when using “bankruptcy remote” entities in funding structures. Given the prevalence of such entities, this is an important decision for all participants in the structured fi nance industry.

In In re Kohls, 2007 LEXIS 76 (Bankr NDWVa 2007), the debtor filed this adversary proceeding against the Bank to cancel indebtedness and recover damages related to a $34,864 loan that the Bank made to the Debtor on the grounds that the loan was unconscionable at the time it was executed in violation of W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121.

According to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, a lack of bad faith is no longer a defense to court sanctions for failure to produce documents in a timely manner. That court, in In re A&M Florida Properties II, recently awarded sanctions against both a party and its counsel for the counsel’s failure to become familiar with the client’s email and data-retention policies and systems— despite the absence of any bad faith or willful delay.1

These are tough times in the hotel business. The recession has squeezed room rates and net operating income. The credit crunch means new borrowing is available only at lower loan to value ratios near 50%, on already beaten down values. At the same time, many tens of billions of dollars of existing hotel loans are maturing or otherwise in default, leaving the owners with little ability to sell or refinance at for amounts sufficient to pay off existing debt.

GFI Acquisition, LLC v. American Federated Title Corp., 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1217

An action was brought by the plaintiff alleging that the defendants breached an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to disclose provisions in the agreement which would operate to lock the plaintiffs out of subsequent negotiations to refinance loans on the properties to be assumed on the date of closing.

Now that the American Land Title Association ("ALTA") has withdrawn the ALTA Form 21-06 Creditor's Rights Endorsement, what steps can a lender take to protect itself?

To recap, the Creditors' Rights Endorsement provided protection against loss or damage sustained by the lender in the event that the lender's mortgage was set aside due to a fraudulent conveyance or preference under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, state insolvency statutes or other creditor's rights laws.

Receiverships are becoming a popular tool for creditors to manage distressed real estate and to realize upon their collateral. Lenders are looking at receiverships as a faster and more efficient and cost effective strategy than forcing a debtor into bankruptcy. They offer the lender flexibility as opposed to well established procedures under bankruptcy. The current economy is also resulting in increased use of receiverships to complete unfinished buildings.  

For many hotel owners, it is an all-too-familiar story: occupancy is down, and even though operating expenses have been cut to the bone, there is just not enough money to go around. It seems there is always another bill: franchise fees, payroll, real property taxes, debt service—the list goes on. The unfortunate result is that either because of a failure to make a payment or a breach of some other covenant, the owner finds itself looking at a default notice from its lender. When dealing with a loan default, there are four things the hotel owner needs to understand.

In difficult economic times, debtors’ attorneys closely review credit reports looking for potential legal claims against creditors. Long after a debtor has been discharged from bankruptcy, creditors can find themselves defending claims of improper credit reporting. A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina illustrates the trouble facing creditors who furnish incorrect reports of discharged debt. See In re Adams (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2010).

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held the seller in an asset purchase transaction liable for breach of an exclusivity provision in the subject asset purchase agreement, dismissing the seller's argument that the fiduciary duties owed by management to creditors negate the contractual exclusivity provision.