The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware recently issued an opinion that appears to alter, in part, its earlier decision regarding the administrative status of stub rent.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision earlier this year that is likely to have a significant impact on bankruptcy sales of property. In In re New 118th, Inc., 398 B.R. 791 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009), the court held that certain tax exemptions available pursuant to section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in connection with transfers of property that occur "under a plan," apply to pre-confirmation sales that close after confirmation and are necessary to the consummation of the debtor's plan.
A fundamental component in the commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") market is the lender's reliance that the loan is made to a "bankruptcy remote" special purpose entity ("SPE"). The loan documents and operating agreements relating to an SPE typically require that the SPE maintain separate existence and contain restrictions that limit the SPE's debt and ensure separateness.
In a decision with potentially broad implications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently determined that payments made to former shareholders of a privately held company in a leveraged buyout transaction are protected as "settlement payments" pursuant to section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The US government’s foray into restructuring the ailing US automotive industry has been widely reported in the media and represents the most substantial federal intervention in the private business sector since the Great Depression. In Chrysler’s case, the government took the unprecedented step of orchestrating a “surgical” Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing with the primary goal of utilizing the provisions of Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code to sell substantially all of Chrysler’s assets to “New Chrysler” in less than 30 days.
On October 2, the official committee of unsecured creditors in the chapter 11 cases of Lyondell Chemical Co. filed a motion for the appointment of an examiner in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The committee asserts that an examiner is needed to investigate allegations of a conflicted rights offering sponsor, the debtors’ refusal to refinance the debtor-in-possession credit facility, and the debtors’ refusal to formulate a plan of reorganization with an appropriate reserve for unsecured creditors pending resolution of the committee’s adversary proceeding.
Yesterday, the Minnesota Department of Commerce closed Riverview Community Bank, headquartered in Otsego, Minnesota, and the FDIC was named as receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Central Bank, Stillwater, Minnesota, to assume all the deposits of Riverview Community Bank.
Yesterday, the OCC closed Flagship National Bank, headquartered in Bradenton, Florida, and the FDIC was named as receiver.
Yesterday, the Georgia Department of Banking & Finance closed American United Bank, headquartered in Lawrenceville, Georgia, and the FDIC was named as receiver.
It seems safe to assume that no lender would extend high-dollar credit without first having a deep knowledge of the party accepting the funds. Certainly, such deep knowledge would include the precise legal name of that borrower. Nevertheless, recent cases continue to demonstrate the prevalence of filing UCC-1 financing statements that may be deemed “seriously misleading” as to the name of the debtor and, therefore, ineffective to fix the secured creditor’s place in the chain of priority.