According to a U.S. Department of Justice press release, the federal government and 49 state attorneys general have reached a $25 billion settlement agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers to settle claims over alleged mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. If reports are correct, the agreement, which Attorney General Holder called the “the largest joint federal-state settlement ever obtained,” compels the mortgage servicers to adhere to extensive new servicing standards and provides considerable financial relief for homeowners.
The Issue
The issue is whether a Chapter 11 plan can be crammed down over the secured lender’s objection where the plan provides for the sale or transfer of the secured lender’s collateral with the proceeds going to the secured lender without the secured lender having the right to credit bid for is collateral up to the full amount of its claim.
On January 19, 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In re River East Plaza, LLC , 2012 WL 169760 (7th Cir. January 19, 2012), affirming an order by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granting an undersecured creditor's motion to lift the automatic stay and dismissing the debtor's single asset real case. The debtor attempted to defeat the mortgagee's motion to lift the automatic stay by proposing a "cramdown" Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
IN RE: RIVER WEST PLAZA - CHICAGO, LLC (December 22, 2011)
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court has confirmed that in multiple-debtor chapter 11 cases, the cramdown rules set forth in section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code must be applied on a per debtor basis as opposed to a per plan basis. See In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC, No. 11-13338 (MFW), 2011 WL 6749058 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 22, 2011) (“Jameson”) and In re Tribune Co., No. 08-13141 (KJC), 2011 WL 5142420 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 31, 2011) (“Tribune”).
Introduction
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held recently that § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code does not limit the potential recovery on fraudulent transfer claims to the amount of unpaid creditor claims against a debtor’s estate. According to the Court, the language in § 550(a) that states that a plaintiff in an avoidance action can recover the property transferred or the value of the property “for the benefit of the estate” provides a “floor” rather than a “ceiling” on recovery.
Introduction
In an opinion that has wide-ranging implications for the structured finance industry, the Delaware bankruptcy court recently dismissed a mezzanine borrower’s chapter 11 case as a bad faith filing pursuant to section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC, No. 11-13338, 2011 WL 6749058 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec.