In re Grubb & Ellis Co., 478 B.R. 622 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) –
Real estate agents who worked for Grubb & Ellis Co. prior to its bankruptcy sought allowance of their claims for commissions as an administrative expense. Grubb & Ellis addresses the question of whether a commission due for a sale that closes post-petition where the buyer was procured prepetition is entitled to treatment as an administrative expense.
Section 382 limits a loss corporation’s ability to use its Net Operating Losses (NOLs) carryforwards following an "ownership change."1 An ownership change is triggered if one or more "5-percent shareholders" of the loss corporation increase their ownership in the aggregate by more than 50 percentage points during a testing period. Following an ownership change, the "Section 382 limitation" generally reduces the ability to use NOLs to offset taxable income in any post-change year.2
© 2011 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. in the Vol. 5, No. 12 edition of the Bloomberg Law Reports—Bankruptcy Law. Reprinted with permission. Bloomberg Law Reports® is a registered trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P.
When is a loan not a loan? The SDNY Bankruptcy Court in In Re: Live Primary, LLC[1] held that a $6 million start-up loan was actually an equity contribution after analyzing the terms of the transaction and the intent of the parties. The court recharacterized the loan as equity given the alleged loan functioned as an equity investment would be expected to function.
The macroeconomic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on nearly all industries is forcing businesses directly and indirectly affected by the global pandemic to consider restructuring alternatives. Since prospective businesses looking to reorganize or liquidate through the chapter 11 process are likely to need immediate cash in order to operate their businesses, these companies often will look to existing or third-party lenders (and in certain cases, stalking horse bidders or customer groups) to provide them with debtor-in-possession financing (DIP Financing).
In Kinnick v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that sending a collection letter to a bankruptcy debtor provided that debtor with standing to file a claim based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the creditor outside of the bankruptcy case.
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court has denied a creditor’s motion for sanctions against a law firm in the Middle District of Florida which the creditor alleged engaged in serial filings.
Reprinted with permission of the American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review. Originally published at 26 Amer. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 115 (2018).
In re Walker, 526 B.R. 187 (E.D. La. 2015) –
The bankruptcy court (1) denied a mortgage lender’s request to file a late amendment to a proof of claim that had been filed on its behalf by the debtor and (2) confirmed the debtor’s proposed plan over the mortgagee’s objection that the plan payments were not sufficient to cure the actual arrearage. The lender appealed to the district court.