On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important opinion1 in the ongoing fraudulent conveyance litigation brought by the unsecured creditors’ committee in the bankruptcy of homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”).

In Mothershead v. Delphi Corp., ARB No. 10-120, ALJ No. 2007-SOX-084, (ARB Apr. 26, 2012), the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) held that the bankruptcy discharge of an individually owned company’s claim also barred the individuals owner’s whistleblower complaint.

Technological innovation has changed the landscape of domestic natural gas production from shortage to surplus. The result: a glut of natural gas and historically low prices. While many producers have successfully hedged against this risk to date, as older hedges roll off, many companies are unable to obtain replacement hedges at attractive prices. Some have even resorted to monetizing their in-the-money hedges to raise capital today (and borrowing against the future).

On May 4, 2012, the Delaware bankruptcy court inIn re KB Toys, Inc., et al. (KB Toys), handed down a thoughtful decision addressing the issue of whether impairments attach to a claim or remain with its seller. The KB Toys court held that “a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant. Disabilities attach to and travel with the claim.”

On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,¹ in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to secure new loans (the “New Term Loans”) incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”) were avoidable fraudulent transfers.

IN RE: USA BABY, INC. (March 28, 2012)

Scott Wallis owned 5% of USA Baby, Inc., a children's furniture franchisor. After its creditors forced it into reorganization, the bankruptcy trustee moved to convert the case to a liquidation. The bankruptcy judge agreed. Wallis moved twice for reconsideration. He alleged first that the trustee and franchisees committed fraud. He later argued that reorganization was possible if the franchisees paid fees that were due. The court denied his requests. Judge Lefkow (N.D. Ill.) affirmed. Wallis appeals.

On May 8, 2012, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) entered its Order (the “Order”) Establishing Procedures to Assert Claims Arising under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code (“503(b)(9) Claims”) in the chapter 11 cases of AFA Investment, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) (Bankr. D. Del. 12-11127 (MFW)).

On May 10th, FDIC Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg discussed the FDIC's authority to resolve failing systemically important financial institutions ("SIFIs"). Gruenberg outlined how the FDIC would implement its resolution authority, noting that it would place the institution in receivership, creating a bridge holding company for the SIFI's assets and investments. Shareholders and subordinated and unsecured creditors would be left in receivership, although some of the SIFI's debt would be converted into equity.

Indentures often contain make-whole premiums payable upon early redemption of the debt, and term B loan agreements often include "soft call" protection in the form of prepayment premiums during the early life of the loan. If the debt issuer becomes subject to a chapter 11 proceeding after the debt issuance, the question then arises as to how this payment obligation is to be treated: Does the make-whole or prepayment premium constitute unmatured interest due as a result of the debt acceleration, which would be disallowed, or is it liquidated damages?

Leading the Past Week