Financial advisors, investment bankers, lawyers and other professionals in reorganization cases should pay close attention to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down on Jan. 6, 2009. In re Smart World Technologies, LLC, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. 1/6/2009).
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that an oversecured lender holds at least an unsecured claim for contractual prepayment penalties against a solvent debtor. UPS Capital Business Credit v. Gencarelli (In re Gencarelli), 2007 BL 91656 (1st Cir., Aug. 30, 2007). As the court explained, "[t]his is a difficult question that has significant ramifications for the commercial lending industry." Id. at 16.
On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the city of Detroit had satisfied the five expressly delineated eligibility requirements for filing under Chapter 9 of the US Bankruptcy Code1 and so could proceed with its bankruptcy case.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a lender’s security interest in accounts was not perfected because a reference to “proceeds” in the lender’s UCC financing statement did not expressly refer to “accounts.” The Sixth Circuit surprisingly interpreted the definition of “proceeds”1 in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code to exclude “accounts”2 (despite and without reference to provisions of UCC Article 9 to the contrary).
On September 14, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's finding that a failed bank's parent did not make a capital maintenance commitment to the bank. After the parent filed for bankruptcy, the FDIC was appointed receiver for the bank. The FDIC then sought payment from the parent under the statute requiring a party seeking reorganization to fulfill commitments to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.
On September 30th, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the bankruptcy trustee's lawsuit against Deloitte & Touche, the debtor's former auditor. The trustee alleged that Deloitte negligently failed to uncover and report unsound related-party transactions by the debtor's sole shareholder and CEO, and aided and abetted the CEO's breach of his fiduciary duty to the debtor. Affirming dismissal, the Court held the trustee failed to allege reliance upon Deloitte's audits and the statute of limitations bars the aiding and abetting claim.
On September 15th, the Sixth Circuit resolved a conflict among the district courts within the circuit. It held that a bank holding the undersecured home mortgage of a Chapter 13 debtor who is in arrears at the time of filing, is entitled to receive under the Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan fees and costs in the arrearage cure. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Tucker.
On July 2nd, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court's finding that, under Kentucky law, a bank did not perfect its security interest in an auto loan until that security interest was noted on the title. Because perfection did not occur within 20 days after the debtor received possession of the auto, Section 547(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code did not protect the bank's loan from avoidance as a preferential transfer. Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Brock.
On April 12th, the Sixth Circuit held that a Chapter 13 debtor has standing to bring an avoidance action even when the bankruptcy trustee does not. It further held that the defendant mortgage company perfected its lien by equitably converting the lien on plaintiff's manufactured home to one for real property when the state court entered judgment on defendant's lis pendens claim. Since that order was entered during the 90 day preference period, the lien was avoidable.
On March 24th, the Sixth Circuit joined seven other federal appellate courts in holding that negative equity is included in a creditor's purchase money security interest and is not subject to a bankruptcy court's cramdown authority under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Nuvell Credit Corp. v. Westfall.