Can a profit-sharing provision in a commercial lease survive assumption and assignment by a debtor? Analyzing such a provision, the Third Circuit answered “no,” finding the provision to constitute an unenforceable anti-assignment provision. Haggen Holdings, LLC v. Antone Corp, 739 Fed. Appx. 153 (2018).

Legal and Factual Background

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.

In In re Argon Credit, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-39654 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery on the senior lender's claim, pursuant to section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Facts

In In re Argon Credit, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-39654 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery on the senior lender’s claim, pursuant to section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In a recent decision that will be of interest to capital and structured finance market participants,1 a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York found that nonrecourse noteholders of a structured finance vehicle were not eligible petitioners under § 303(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore could not commence an involuntary bankruptcy case.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Illinois strictly enforced a subordination agreement to prevent the junior lienholder from even obtaining discovery from the senior creditor. In re Argon Credit, LLC, slip. op. (Bankr. N.D. Il. January 10, 2019).

The Bottom Line

In one of the first applications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the scope of section 546(e) in Merit Management, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Carey found that section 546(e)’s safe harbor did not apply to fraudulent transfers between two parties that were not financial institutions, even if the transaction passed through financial intermediaries.

What Happened

On January 15th, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the end user of an electricity forward contact was not entitled to the benefits of the safe harbor provisions under Section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 556 allows a “forward contract merchant” to terminate a forward contract post-petition based on an ipso facto clause in the contract and exempts such actions from the automatic stay.

Beauty Brands, LLC, along with two subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 19-10031).

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan cannot modify the rights of a secured creditor whose claim is only secured by an “interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.” On December 6, the Eleventh Circuit held that this provision prevents the discharge of a mortgage in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, regardless of whether the plan “provided for” the mortgage or whether the mortgagee filed a proof of claim.