The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has abstained from hearing a dispute between a primary and an excess professional liability insurer related to a bankruptcy settlement based on the mandatory abstention doctrine. Royal Indemn. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., Inc., 2007 WL 4171649 (D.N.J. Nov. 19, 2007). After the insured corporation declared bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee settled claims with the insured's primary professional liability insurer.

In the summer of 2007, we reported on Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. (In re Manhattan Investment Fund, Ltd.),1 decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Determining a question of first impression within its circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that an oversecured creditor is entitled to collect a bargained-for pre-payment penalty from a solvent debtor, regardless of the penalty’s “reasonableness” under section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In so holding, the First Circuit reversed the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy and District Courts for the District of Rhode Island. Gencarelli v. UPS Capital Business Credit, 50 F.3d 1 (1st Cir., Aug. 30, 2007).

The Bankruptcy Code facilitates asset sales in chapter 11 by offering incentives to buyers and flexibility in structuring and timing the sale. A buyer can acquire assets free and clear of liens and is permitted to "cherry-pick" the debtor's contracts and leases to select only those it wants to keep. The assets and sale process can be structured in many ways, including auctions, private sales, lot or bulk sales, and going concern transactions.

The Key Parties

In UPS Capital Business Credit v. Gencarelli (In re Gencarelli),1 the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a secured creditor is entitled to collect a prepayment penalty from a solvent debtor. The Court found that the secured creditor could collect the penalty, whether or not it is reasonable, so long as the penalty is enforceable under state law. The Court reasoned that any other holding would leave open the possibility that an unsecured creditor could recover more from a solvent estate than a secured creditor.

Background

Must a foreign debtor's insolvency representative obtain permission from a United States bankruptcy court before exercising the debtor's rights as shareholder to remove and replace directors and officers of a US corporation? The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth Circuit recently held not, provided that the representative does not require judicial assistance to exercise these rights.1

In the chapter 1 1 cases of Adelphia Communications Corporation and its subsidiaries, Adelphia sought to assume and assign more than 2,000 franchise agreements in connection with the proposed transfer of its cable operations to affiliates of Comcast Corporation and Time Warner Cable. Numerous local franchising authorities objected, arguing, among other things, that they had a right of first refusal under the agreements, and in some cases also under a local ordinance, to purchase the franchise on substantially the same terms and conditions.

Two circuit courts of appeal recently addressed whether a company filing chapter 11 for the sole purpose of retaining vital leases did so in good faith. In In re Capitol Food of Fields Corner, the First Circuit, in a matter of first impression on the issue of chapter 11’s implied good-faith filing requirement, declined to address the broader question, concluding that even if there is a good-faith filing requirement, a prima facie showing of bad faith could not be met because the debtor articulated several legitimate reasons for the necessity of reorganizing under chapter 11.

For more than 10 years, the courts in New Jersey were split as to whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, a chapter 13 debtor’s right to cure a default on a mortgage loan secured by the debtor’s primary residence expired at the foreclosure sale, or at the time the deed to the foreclosed property was delivered to the purchaser. That split now has been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in favor of the line of cases cutting off the right to cure at the time of the foreclosure sale. In re Connors, No. 06-3321 (3d Cir., Aug. 3, 2007).

Congress enacted amendments to the United States Bankruptcy Code in 2005 designed to increase certainty in the marketplace for mortgage loan repurchase agreements and other financial contracts.1 The contours – and limits – of these amendments were recently explored by the Delaware bankruptcy court in Calyon New York Branch v. American Home Mortgage Corp.