A bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of California recently issued a decision that is sure to raise appellate eyebrows.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a creditor’s claim is a “secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property”—that is, it is a secured claim for an amount equal to the present value of the collateral—and is an “unsecured claim” for the remainder. Section 506(d) provides that, “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.”

The NAIC’s Federal Home Loan Bank Legislation (E) Subgroup (the “FHLB Subgroup”) is considering, among other things, proposed amendments to the Insurer Receivership Model Act (“IRMA”) to provide certain exemptions for security agreements between insurance companies and Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”).

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that redemptions of commercial paper made through the Depositary Trust Company (DTC) are entitled to the “safe harbor” protections afforded to settlement payments under Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), and are, therefore, not preferential transfers, even though such payments were made prior to maturity.1 The Second Circuit is the first Circuit Court of Appeal to address the issue, which arises out of the Enron bankruptcy case.

Legal Framework

In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.

In its August 5th, 2021 VeroBlue Farms decision,[1] the Eighth Circuit lent its voice to a growing body of criticism of the equitable mootness doctrine contending that its use to bar challenges to confirmed reorganization plans should be circumscribed.

On February 8, 2021, three student loan borrowers filed an involuntary petition against Navient Solutions LLC in New York bankruptcy court seeking to force Navient into bankruptcy.[1] Navient Solutions is the loan servicing arm of Navient Corporation, a student loan originator which manages approximately $300 billion in student loan debt for more than 12 million borrowers.

Since filing for Chapter 11 in May 2020, Hertz and its major stakeholders have been in negotiations and, at times, disputes over how best to reduce Hertz’s nearly half-a-million vehicle fleet. These negotiations and disputes have caught the eye of investors in asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and market watchers alike, as the outcome of the case could have rippling effects across the ABS industry and capital markets, generally.

Last summer, my colleague C.J. Summers and I posted a report about Saccameno v. U.S. Bank National Association, a Seventh Circuit case in which we had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

The first step in determining if a subscription credit facility, often called a capital call facility (a “Subscription Facility”), is a viable option for a private equity or similar investment fund (a “Fund”) is to diligence the limited partnership agreement or other organizational document of the Fund (the “LPA”). Subscription Facility lenders usually require that specific concepts and language be included in an LPA in order to provide a Subscription Facility without additional credit support, such as investor consent letters.