Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 US App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. May 15, 2012)

From theory to practice, planning to enforcement, the answers to 42 of the most frequently asked questions can help you prepare, cope or respond to a restructuring. This Client Alert answers some of the most frequently asked questions with respect to the treatment of pension-plan liabilities and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) obligations in US bankruptcies. Understanding the treatment of pension and OPEB obligations in bankruptcy continues to be important in today’s business environment and the law relating to the treatment of these obligations continues to evolve.

Your good client Michael Bluth calls you from the Delaware bankruptcy court. Now that his family’s business, The Bluth Company, has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and his late nights with DIP lenders and our bankruptcy colleagues have come to a temporary pause, Michael’s ready to turn back to his typical day-to-day job running his business.

“In chapter 11, a creditor should be able to assert the full amount of any guarantee claim against the debtor without reducing the claim for recoveries against another obligor.”

“Whether the Nortel Senior Notes will be entitled to post-petition interest, and at what rate, in the chapter 11 cases are open questions that may hinge, among other things, on proving solvency of the Nortel chapter 11 debtors.”

Second Circuit’s reversal of controversial restructuring decision may boost confidence among distressed bond issuers.

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code is designed to provide an effective mechanism to aid insolvency proceedings in foreign countries that involve a foreign debtor with assets, creditors and other parties in interest located in the foreign country as well as in United States. A foreign representative that is authorized to administer the foreign reorganization or liquidation or act as a representative of the foreign proceeding is the party who applies to the US bankruptcy court for recognition of the foreign proceeding.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amendments to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Amended Rule 2019) and submitted the proposed amendment to Congress for approval. Amended Rule 2019 was approved by Congress and became effective on December 1, 2011. The rule governs certain disclosure requirements for groups consisting of multiple creditors or equity security holders acting in concert in Chapter 9 or Chapter 11 cases.

The decision provides some additional, though limited protection for licensees of trademarks in bankruptcy proceedings

Introduction

In In re Tempnology LLC,1 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the BAP) for the First Circuit provided additional clarity regarding the rights of intellectual property licensees under section 365(n) of the United States Bankruptcy Code,2 particularly with respect to trademark licenses. In Tempnology, the First Circuit BAP concluded that:

Section 365(n) extends only to licenses of "intellectual property" as defined in the Bankruptcy Code,3

On April 1, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, ruled that the City of Stockton, California, could proceed with its chapter 9 bankruptcy filing. Judge Klein’s decision affirmed Stockton’s status as the largest US city (population 300,000) to have successfully sought bankruptcy protection and proceed with bankruptcy.1 Judge Klein’s comments on the record may also signal that the resolution of Stockton’s chapter 9 will require the impairment of the city’s pension obligations.

The Court of Appeal in England has unanimously upheld a first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it superpriority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decision has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.