“The right of setoff … allows entities to apply their mutual debts against each other to avoid the pointless exercise of ‘making A pay B when B owes A.’” held the Seventh Circuit on Aug. 17, 2018. Berg v. Social Security Administration, 900 F.3d 864, 868 (7th Cir. 2018). But the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) limits “a creditor’s right of setoff during the ninety-day period prior to the” date of bankruptcy, said the court. Id.

“[T]he Bankruptcy Code does not permit [an undersecured] creditor . . . to advance an unsecured claim for post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees,” held the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Nov. 27, 2017. Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. Iii v. Faison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195267, *8 (E.D. N. C. Nov. 27, 2017). Affirming the bankruptcy court, the district court agreed that “the Code is most properly interpreted to allow only oversecured creditors to add post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees.” Id., at *10.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

A Chapter 11 debtor’s pre-bankruptcy “surrender of [two] … leases to [its landlord] could be regarded as a preferential transfer,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 11, 2016. In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP, 2016 WL 930298, at *2 (7th Cir. March 11, 2016).

So-called “red flags” were not “sufficient to impose a duty on [a gambling casino (‘Casino’)] to investigate” a Chapter 11 debtor’s pre-bankruptcy fraudulent transfers to its insiders who gambled at the Casino, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Oct. 13, 2015. In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., 2015 WL 5936354, at *6 (7th Cir. Oct. 13, 2015).

A bank did not engage in “egregious conduct” sufficient to subordinate its lien on equitable grounds, held the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 10, 2014. In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc., 2014 WL 6990322 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2014) (“Sentinel IV”). Moreover, because of the bank’s “good faith,” the corrupt borrower’s fraudulent pledging of customer funds to the bank to secure a so-called $312-million rescue loan “cannot be avoided.” Id. at *10.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on July 21, 2014, held that an indenture trustee’s late filing of senior claims did not waive the lenders’ contractual subordination rights, reversing the bankruptcy court. In re Franklin Bank Corporation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98327 (D. Del. July 21, 2014). Nor did the senior trustee’s late filing show inequitable conduct warranting equitable subordination of the tardily filed senior claims to timely filed junior claims.

On Sept. 12, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny payment of a make-whole premium (the “Make-Whole Amount”) to bondholders under three separate indentures (the “Indentures”) based on the plain language of those agreements. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. AMR Corp. et al. (In re AMR Corp.), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4840474 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (“In re AMR Corp. II”).

A New York bankruptcy court recently held that a losing acquiror in a competing Chapter 11 plan fight had “standing” to seek reimbursement of its legal fees and expenses as a “substantial contribution” to the reorganization case. In re S & Y Enterprises, LLC, et al., 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 4622, at *4-*5 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2012). Nevertheless, the losing acquiror failed to recover because, in the court’s view, it did not satisfy the statutory requirements for reimbursement with the requisite “preponderance of the evidence.” Id.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a Cayman Islands collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) could be a debtor under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and declined to dismiss an involuntary case commenced against the CDO by certain noteholders on the grounds that the notes held by such noteholders were “non-recourse” notes. Below is a discussion of the court’s decision and its potential implications. The decision is currently being appealed.