A recently proposed rule by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would systemically impose significant bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies to submit annual resolution plans and quarterly credit exposure reports.

Although it has been described as an “extraordinary remedy,” the ability of a bankruptcy court to order the substantive consolidation of related debtor-entities in bankruptcy (if circumstances so dictate) is relatively uncontroversial, as an appropriate exercise of a bankruptcy court’s broad (albeit nonstatutory) equitable powers. By contrast, considerable controversy surrounds the far less common practice of ordering consolidation of a debtor in bankruptcy with a nondebtor.

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals in two separate circuits held that liability insurers have standing as parties in interest to appear and be heard in an insured's Chapter 11 case where the insurer might be liable to indemnify the claims of the insured's creditors.

On June 8, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced the appointment of Assemblyman Jonathan Bing to serve as Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau, an agency tasked with protecting policyholders and creditors of insurance companies that have gone bankrupt.  Bing steps in as the successor to Dennis J. Hayes, who was appointed to the position in September 2009.  Bing’s appointment ends his fifth term in the New York State Assembly, where he has represented the 73rd District since November 2002.

Prior to the 1984 Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code1 (BAFJA), there was a split as to whether a transfer of title to real estate by virtue of a mortgage foreclosure constituted a transfer as defined in §101 of the Bankruptcy Code.2, 3 However, BAFJA made it clear that a “transfer” included “the foreclosure of a debtor’s equity of redemption.”4 This change in definition has a significant impact on the application of both §547 (preference) and §548 (fraudulent transfer).  

In two recent decisions, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has interpreted narrowly certain of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.  

The second priority lien held by a junior lien holder is a property interest sufficient to trigger the protection of the automatic stay.In re Three Strokes L.P., 379 B.R. 804 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2008). Inasmuch as a senior lien holder’s foreclosure proceedings would have the effect of extinguishing the debtor’s second lien interest, a court may only lift the stay and permit the foreclosure to proceed upon such senior lien holder’s showing of adequate protection.

Summary

In an 11 page opinion published May 27, 2011, Judge Walsh granted a motion under F.R.C.P. 56(d) and quoted another opinion which says “where the facts are in possession of the moving party a continuance of a motion for summary judgment for purposes of discovery should be granted almost as a matter of course.” Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

The Seventh Circuit recently decided that a mortgage that assigns future rental income to the mortgagee creates a security interest that takes priority over a federal tax lien.  Bloomfield State Bank v. United States, No.

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.