In a decision that may have implications for holders of community development district bonds and other similar “dirt bonds,” a Florida bankruptcy court has ruled that holders of community development district bonds do not always have plan voting rights when the underlying developer — as opposed to the development district itself — is the bankruptcy debtor.

When dealing with a debtor in Chapter 11, vendors typically seek to protect against loss by insisting upon payment in advance or on very short terms. However, the monies paid to a vendor following the filing of bankruptcy often constitute the cash collateral of a secured creditor. It is critical that a vendor determine whether the debtor has authorization to use cash collateral.

The Bottom Line: 

On September 13, 2011, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted standing for an equity committee in In re Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WaMu”) to seek “equitable disallowance” of claims held by noteholders that had traded claims after engaging in negotiations with WaMu over the terms of a global restructuring.

Sending the Debtors back to the drawing board after almost three years in bankruptcy, in a 139 page opinion, the Bankruptcy Court has for the second time denied confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization for Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WaMu”), which was the owner of the largest savings bank ever to be seized by the FDIC.

On September 21, 2011, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director David Vladeck sent a letter to the court appointed consumer privacy ombudsman in the Borders Group, Inc. (Borders) bankruptcy proceeding advising against the sale of Border's customer information absent customer consent or significant restrictions on the transfer and use of the information.

Earlier this month, James Carroll in his capacity as the "Wind Down Professional" for the Velocity Express bankruptcy, began filing preference actions against various defendants.  As alleged in the preference complaints, Carroll was appointed as Velocity's Wind Down Professional under a "Wind Down Order" entered by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in July of last year.  At the time it filed for bankruptcy, Velocity was a package delivery (aka "logistics") provider whose services included customer bulk shipments, pick-up and delivery services as well as "expedited point to point servi

• On September 16, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice amended its complaint to enjoin the AT&T/T-Mobile merger to include the states of New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Washington, and Ohio as additional plaintiffs. United States v. AT&T Inc., No. 11-cv-1560 (D.D.C.).
• On September 19, 2011, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Texas largely denied the motion to dismiss of Verizon Communications, and related entities, against claims that they defrauded investors and creditors via spinoff company Idearc.

Last week’s Chapter 11 filing by NewPage Corporation, a company with assets and liabilities in the billions of dollars, stands as a relative rarity in the current restructuring environment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision refusing to confirm debtors’ reorganization plan that included auction procedures that forbade secured creditors from “credit bidding” for the assets. Inre River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, No. 10-3597, 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011). In that case, the debtors (owners of various hotel properties) proposed a plan of reorganization that included auctioning certain properties encumbered by security interests.