On March 1, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C. et al, (Inre Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C.)¹ (“Texas Grand Prairie”) affirming an order of the bankruptcy court confirming a debtor’s plan of reorganization over the objection the secured creditor that argued that the interest rate proposed by the plan to be paid to the secured creditor was too low in violation of 11 U.S.C. §1129(b).

Those who practice in the secured transactions arena, and our clients, understand the importance of filing financing statements and continuing them on a regular basis. Failure to maintain perfection of a security interest can be disastrous to a secured lender in the case of a bankruptcy case involving its borrower. Financing statements can, however, sometimes be mistakenly terminated. Two recent cases illustrate the issues which may arise when a financing statement is inadvertently terminated.

Automotive sales in North America continue to climb, and many suppliers are prospering. However, there are some companies who are struggling and who may face bankruptcy. We have seen companies such as A123 Systems and certain subsidiaries of Revstone Industries recently file for protection under the Bankruptcy Code. How can a supplier to a troubled company protect itself? Must a supplier continue to supply on credit terms? The Uniform Commercial Code may assist such a supplier in this situation.

Distressed m&a is the “new normal” in Chapter 11 cases, as noted here and elsewhere. Two large media marketing and advertising companies, Super

Last Fall, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in the Charter Communications bankruptcy case which will create additional significant challenges for those seeking to appeal confirmation of plans of reorganization that have been implemented. See 691 F.3d 476. Upon implementation (or “substantial consummation”) of the plan, the Second Circuit presumes that the appeal of such plan is equitably moot. Appellants bear the burden of overcoming that presumption.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on March 1, 2013, that a bankruptcy court had not erred in applying a prime plus 1.75 percent interest rate to a secured lender’s $39 million claim under a "cramdown" plan of reorganization. Wells Fargo Bank N.A v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC (In the Matter of Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 776317 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013).

When does the selection of a technically correct venue become “unjust”? This was the core question Judge Shelley Chapman was required to grapple with when Patriot Coal and almost 100 of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in New York this past summer. Should it matter that Patriot Coal created the New York subsidiaries, that permitted a New York court filing, about a month prior to the actual bankruptcy filing?

In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of an executory trademark license does not terminate the licensee’s right to use the trademark. The decision creates a circuit-level split that may invite Supreme Court review. However, no final resolution is likely soon. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, denying a petition for a writ of certiorari in December of 2012.

The Bankruptcy Court’s conversion of Section 11 of the Illinois Conveyance Act from a safe harbor provision to a mandatory checklist that must be satisfied to survive avoidance challenges has been reversed (Crane Bankruptcy – D Ct decision).  The Central District of Illinois holds compliance with the statute is permissive.  While the statute provides that mortgages containing the enumerated terms, including the interest rate and matu

Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’ tax because WMI had (as the parent corporation) filed consolidated corporate tax returns on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and therefore could be held jointly and severally liable for the tax due.