How far do the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions extend in the commercial mortgage-backed securitization (CMBS) market? Do these safe harbor provisions protect financial institutions that act merely as conduits for CMBS payments? These questions were addressed recently by the Northern District of Illinois District Court, and the court’s decision provides ammunition for CMBS investors in clawback claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.

In the mid-1990’s I represented several trade creditors in a contentious Chapter 11 bankruptcy called Pro-Snax. At the creditors’ request, the bankruptcy court directed the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee one month into the case. Nonetheless the dispossessed debtor pursued a Chapter 11 liquidation plan. The creditors, which held a clear “blocking position” in terms of class voting, opposed the plan. The plan was denied confirmation six months into the case.

The UK Government announced plans in parliament on 3 March 2015 requiring insolvency practitioners to provide an upfront estimate of their fees for creditor approval, where they are charging on a time-cost basis. The new rules are expected to be in force from October 2015 for English and Welsh regimes (although they will not apply to members’ voluntary liquidations).

In a sternly-worded, sixty-page opinion last week, the Sixth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed a bankruptcy court’s $200,000 sanctions order against an attorney that arose from a plethora of litigation over an ultimately disallowed claim in what became a complicated bankruptcy.

In common with most of the population, now is the key time for making those resolutions for 2015. Suggestions appear below!

According to a recent decision from the Delaware Supreme Court, a secured party bears the burden of any mistakes in its security documents.  Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Co. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 325, 2014 Del. LEXIS 491 (Del. Oct. 17, 2014) (“Del.

The Texas Supreme Court, on June 20, 2014, issued its highly  anticipated opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex.  2014). Ritchie involved a claim by a minority shareholder in a  closely held corporation under the Texas receivership statute,  seeking to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority  shareholder’s interest in the corporation.

A Michigan bankruptcy judge ruled yesterday that Detroit is eligible for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, overruling numerous objections filed by labor unions, pension funds and other interested parties.  Almost immediately following the ruling, a notice of appeal was filed by Counsel 25 of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”).

In this appeal, the court analyzes the extent of the consequential damages and future loss of profits that correspond to the lessor of a business premise on the occasion of the unilateral termination by the lessee, caused by the failure to obtain the mandatory licenses for the supermarket business of such premise.

The object of this article is to analyze a controversial issue which is considered in recent times by the Mercantile Courts as a current incident involved in the Bankruptcy Proceedings and more specifically, to analyze the Judgement issued by the Court of First Instance no. 9 and Mercantile Court of Cordoba dated April, 19th 2010, in which the aforementioned incident is involved.  

This incident is essentially based on establishing the treatment that should be granted to the additional guarantees provided by third parties in bankruptcy proceedings.