Under the Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”) is required to satisfy postpetition obligations under any unexpired lease of commercial property pending a decision to assume or reject the lease. Specifically, section 365(d)(3) requires the trustee, with limited exceptions, to “timely perform all the obligations of the debtor . . . arising from and after the order for relief” under any unexpired lease of nonresidential real property with respect to which the debtor is the lessee.

Several insurers in liquidation proceedings have upcoming claims bar dates:

Fall-out from the subprime and Alt-A mortgage crisis continued recently with court approval of a multi-million dollar settlement of a lawsuit filed against former top officers of what had been one of the country’s leading subprime lenders before its bankruptcy in January 2008.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

Georgia court rejects “replacement lien” as adequate protection.

A federal district court in Georgia recently ruled that a financial institution creditor in a Chapter 11 case had separate, distinct security interests in both the rental property on which it had accepted a mortgage and that property’s rental income by virtue of an assignment of rents from the debtor.

The City of Detroit filed for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 18, 2013,1 becoming the largest municipality to ever file for bankruptcy. Detroit’s bankruptcy filing presents numerous complicated issues, which will be resolved over the course of the case.

On July 22, a Connecticut bankruptcy attorney and a firm with whom the attorney contracts for legal support services filed a lawsuit charging the CFPB with “grossly overreaching its authority” in requesting “sensitive and privileged information” about thousands of consumers and challenging the constitutionality of the Bureau itself.

“Do not pass Go, do not collect $200” is a phrase we all remember from the childhood game Monopoly.  Like Monopoly, state franchise sales laws have rules and regulations that must be followed.  A franchisor’s failure to follow these basic procedural rules for selling franchises can result in self-destruction. 

The Issue

Summertime is arguably the best time of the year. Warm weather. Long-awaited family vacations. Extended daylight. And unique to this summer, as of July 1, 2013, in most states, we have substantial amendments (the 2010 Amendments) to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to digest (maybe even under an umbrella on the beach). The 2010 Amendments are intended to clarify existing law, especially with respect to how certain types of debtors are named in financing statements. As of July 3, 2013, 44 states and the District of Columbia had enacted the 2010 Amendments.