All too often, a secured creditor’s negotiation and litigation of chapter 11 plan confirmation issues centers disproportionately on the amortization schedule of a secured claim and lacks focus on other issues that shift risk or otherwise have significant economic impact on the relative rights of the parties.

In re Premier Golf Properties, L.P., BAP No. SC- 11-1508-HPaJu (9th Cir. BAP, Aug. 13, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Ninth Circuit B.A.P. affirmed the bankruptcy court decision that post-petition income from greens fees and driving range fees were not “rents, proceeds, or profits” of the secured lender’s pre-petition blanket security interest on all real and personal property (and “all proceeds thereof”) within the meaning of section 552(b), and thus were not cash collateral.

On February 13, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a stipulation between LightSquared and, among others, its lenders to extend until July 15, 2013 LightSquared’s exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. That right was due to expire on January 31, 2013, and then was extended until the court ruled on LightSquared’s motion to extend that date.

In re S. White Transp., Inc., 473 B.R. 695 (S.D. Miss. 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re American Capital Equipment, LLC, 688 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit BAP”) rendered its opinion in Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance v. OPK Biotech, LLC (In re PBBPC, Inc.), BAP No. MB 12-042 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Jan.

In preparing a statement supporting the determination that recusal from a bankruptcy proceeding was unnecessary, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Richard E. Fehling quoted Master Sergeant Georg Hans Shultz from the television sitcom Hogan’s Heroes: “I KNOW NOTHING!  NOTHING!”

In re Sea Trail Corporation, Case No. 11-07370- 8-SWH (Bankr. E.D.N.C., Oct. 23, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In this opinion, the Court of Chancery denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings by certain asbestos claimants (the “Claimants”) seeking appointment of a receiver under 8 Del. C. § 279, holding that the dissolved corporation was not amenable to suits commenced more than ten years after its dissolution and, therefore, the insurance liability contracts held by the dissolved corporation were valueless, rendering appointment of a receiver unnecessary.  The Court also granted an opposing motion for summary judgment on behalf of the dissolved corporation. 

Custom and practice in Illinois with respect to mortgages has been to incorporate the note or other debt instrument by reference, rather than to disclose all of the financial terms of a loan transaction in the mortgage.