On February 28, Fitch addressed questions that have arisen related to the orderly liquidation authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and the securitization safe harbor. Fitch stated that clarifications from the FDIC provide comfort that the rights of investors can be determined at the outset of a securitization and that the ratings assigned to the transaction can be de-linked from those of the sponsoring entity.

The Federal Bankruptcy Act prohibits public and private employers from engaging in various discriminatory acts against individuals because they have filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 525. Inexplicably, the statutes applicable to public and private employers are not identical. The law applicable to a public employer, for example, specifically provides that it "may not . . . deny employment to" one who has filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 525(a). This "deny employment to" language does not appear in the statute for private employers. 11 U.S.C. § 525(b).

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued rulings regarding the availability of tax losses after a bankruptcy,1 the ability to take a loss under Sections 165(a) and 165(g),2 and the characterization of a loss after an ownership change.3 There are few rulings or other sources of authority for these types of issues, and thus, a review of these rulings provides insight into the IRS’s current thinking on the issues addressed.

PLR 201051020

On February 16, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a discounted cash flow analysis constituted “a commercially reasonable determinant[] of value” for purposes of section 562(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.1 In so doing, the court upheld the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware decision sustaining the objection of American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

As discussed in previous posts on this site, back in December the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order that reversed the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the reorganization plan (the “Plan”) of DBSD North America, f/k/a ICO North America (“DBSD”).

On February 10, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a memorandum decision addressing whether the alleged holder of a mortgage loan had sufficient status as a secured creditor to seek relief from the automatic stay to pursue a foreclosure action.1 After resolving the primary issue in controversy on purely procedural grounds and granting the requested relief, the Court analyzed whether an entity that acquires its interest in a mortgage loan through an assignment from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

What is credit bidding? Distilled to its most basic level, Section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code gives a secured creditor the right to use up to the full amount of the debt owed to the secured creditor by the debtor as currency in a bankruptcy auction sale of the collateral securing the debt owed to the secured creditor.

MERS’s authority to assign mortgages was called into question by a bankruptcy court in New York. In re Agard, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 488 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011). In response to the servicer’s motion for relief from the automatic stay, the debtor challenged the servicer’s standing on the ground that MERS lacked the authority to assign the mortgage to the servicer. Because a state court had previously entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of the servicer, the court was compelled by the Rooker Feldman doctrine to reject the debtor’s claims.

When a loan is secured by real property, the current value of the property will be a determining factor in how the lender is treated in bankruptcy and will drive the lender’s bidding strategy in foreclosure. Valuing real property has never been an exact science. Volatility in the residential and commercial real estate markets over the last two years has made it even harder for lenders to rely with confidence on the appraisals they obtain to plan and predict how they will fare in bankruptcy or in foreclosure.

Following a $9 million judgment in its favor, Granite Re was further awarded pre- and post-judgment interest on that judgment. Granite Re filed a proof of claim in Acceptance Insurance’s bankruptcy action for the amount of $10.9 million, the balance of the premium due under a reinsurance contract plus interest. Acceptance disputed the claim, arguing it no longer needed reinsurance, and filed a separate adversary proceeding against Granite Re alleging unjust enrichment. The Eighth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of Acceptance.