On Monday, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) released a report entitled “Factors Affecting Efforts to Limit Payments to AIG Counterparties.” The report examines certain transactions related to the rescue of AIG, including the creation of Maiden Lane III, a limited liability company formed last year to facilitate the purchase of assets from counterparties of AIG Financia
The dispute over the disposition of customer records held by the "Clear" airport traveler program casts a spotlight once again on the handling of consumer personal data when a business falls on hard times. In such circumstances, the desire of the debtor to preserve or maximize the value of its business assets can conflict with legitimate privacy interests of individuals who were customers of the business.
After more than a decade of rising real estate values, the tide has turned against commercial and development real estate, prompting major builders and developers to commence Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) in 2005, many Chapter 11 cases that revolve around real estate will fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of single asset real estate (SARE) cases and are thus subject to special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.1 As a result, it is now time to think about SARE.
In a recent order entered in In re SemCrude, L.P., Case No. 08-11525, the Delaware bankruptcy court (1) clarified the application of Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) to creditors’ priority claims arising from the delivery of goods in the 20 days before a bankruptcy filing and (2) amended a previously entered procedures order to allow for the resolution of disputed “Twenty Day Claims” on their merits.
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) and its affiliated U.S. chapter 11 debtors (the “Debtors”) filed a joint plan with the Bankruptcy Court on March 15, the last day on which the Debtors who filed petitions on September 15, 2008, had the exclusive right to file a plan. As a result of the filing, the Debtors have an additional 60 days during which no other party may file a plan.
Summary
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Stern v. Marshall1 that a bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to render a final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s counterclaim against a creditor based on state common law, despite an express statutory grant of jurisdiction. This ruling is the most significant decision regarding bankruptcy court jurisdiction since the Court’s 1982 decision in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon2 and it could significantly affect the administration of bankruptcy cases.
Root of the Constitutional Problem
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals Protects Payments Made by Enron to Redeem Commercial Paper Prior to Maturity as “Settlement Payments" Under the Bankruptcy Code's Safe Harbor Provisions.
When entering into secured transactions, most secured lenders long assumed that, even in a bankruptcy, their borrowers would not be able to sell encumbered assets free and clear of the lenders’ liens without the lenders’ consent or, without at least providing the lenders the opportunity to bid their secured debt at an auction.