In March 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided In re Airadigm Communications, Inc. (Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. FCC),1 a case that built upon the Supreme Court’s decision in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications, Inc (“NextWave”).2 In NextWave, the Supreme Court held that the FCC’s participation in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

On the afternoon of July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit filed its highly anticipated petition for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This marks the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in United States history.¹As a result of the Chapter 9 filing, all actions by creditors to collect prepetition claims against the City are enjoined through the imposition of an automatic stay, except for the application of special revenues pledged to indebtedness.

In two recent decisions, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has interpreted narrowly certain of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.  

On December 15, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in a closely-watched bankruptcy appeal stemming from the In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC chapter 11 case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. At issue in the appeal is the right of a secured creditor of a chapter 11 debtor to credit bid its secured claims, when the debtor proposes to sell the collateral to a third party, “free and clear” of the creditor’s lien, pursuant to a non-consensual (i.e., “cramdown”) plan of reorganization.

In the March 2008 issue, we discussed a decision from the In re Urban Communicators PCS, Ltd. Partnership1 case. In that decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that under section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court could limit the rate of postpetition interest to be paid to an over-secured creditor to an amount less than the contract interest rate.

In a May 23, 2008 decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that BBB-rated mortgage-backed notes are eligible for the Bankruptcy Code's repurchase agreement safe harbor as “interests in mortgage loans”. The court also held that a repurchase agreement constituted a sale, as opposed to a financing governed by UCC Article 9 -- the first decision on this topic since the financial contract safe harbors were expanded under the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code.

On April 1, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the City of Stockton qualified to file for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court’s decision on this issue serves as an important milestone for chapter 9 jurisprudence, clarifying the requirements for “good faith” negotiations and being “insolvent” as conditions to filing for chapter 9 protection. Significantly, the court held that a municipal debtor need not negotiate with all of its creditors, only those that it intends to impair.

Introduction

On January 25, 2010, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that provisions in a CDO indenture subordinating payments due to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., as swap provider, constituted unenforceable ipso facto clauses under the facts and circumstances of this case. The Court also held that, because the payment priority provisions were not contained in the four corners of a swap agreement, the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections, which generally permit the operation of ipso facto clauses, did not apply.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has ruled that a creditor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, despite pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff. In re SemCrude, L.P., Case No. 08-11525 (BLS), 2009 WL 68873 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 9, 2009). The Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to mutual obligations between a debtor and a single nondebtor.