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

With companies facing significant distress due to vast over-leverage, debtors have increasingly turned to asset sales under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, rather than Chapter 11 plans, to dispose of their assets quickly and begin the process of winding down their estates.  According to the UCLA-LoPucki Bankruptcy Research Database, less than 4 percent of all large, public company bankruptcies were resolved by substantial asset sales  from 1990-2000.  However, in the period from 2001-2010, that figure rose to nearly 20 percent – peaking in 2011 when 43 percent of large pu

I. Introduction.

In a recent ruling from the bench, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that Metavante Corporation’s suspension of payments under an outstanding swap agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

In In re River Center Holdings, LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to permit lenders to enforce an oral commitment of the debtors’ principal to fund certain litigation. In River Center, the debtors’ principal had stated at a hearing that he would fund a condemnation action relating to property that served as collateral for the lenders’ financing.

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.

California has seen a string of three Chapter 9 filings this year and faces a long line of distressed municipalities.  Given this backdrop, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) figures to play a prominent role in the resolution of many of these situations (in or out of bankruptcy).  Thus, the bond‑buying public will scrutinize closely any steps that CalPERS takes to protect its claims in the Bankruptcy Court.

The issue of whether Section 362(a) operates as a stay of ITC Section 337 investigations arose in several ITC cases in the last two years. The first case, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-605, involved Spansion, Inc., a Delaware corporation that manufactures semiconductor chips outside the United States. Spansion was named as a Respondent in the case and contended that the ITC investigation should be stayed as to Spansion pursuant to the automatic stay provision of Section 362(a).

Introduction

The High Court1 in England has confirmed the validity under English law of contractual provisions common in structured finance transactions which subordinate payments to a swap counterparty in circumstances where the swap counterparty has defaulted on its obligations under the terms of the relevant swap agreement.

The Judgment

Parties

In In re Arch Wireless,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a creditor who asserted claims against the debtor in various correspondence between the parties was a “known” claimant of the debtor’s estate entitled to direct notice of the bar date by which it must file a proof of claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that publication notice was insufficient to inform the creditor of the bar date or of the terms of the confirmed plan, even though the creditor was generally aware of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.