Representing a mortgagee holding liens on 37 unsold condominium units, Herrick, Feinstein successfully blocked a debtor's effort to confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization via cramdown. The plan envisioned sales of 27 unsold units over five years, deferred payments to the mortgagee at the rate of 4.75%, and scheduled principal pay downs from the sale of units.

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.

On April 25, 2011, as widely expected, a group of Lehman creditors holding claims arising from terminated derivatives transactions filed a competing plan of reorganization and related disclosure statement in the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. As a result of the new filing, there are now three competing plans – (1) the Debtors’ Plan, (2) the Ad Hoc Group’s Plan (filed by a group of bondholder creditors) and (3) the Non-Consolidation Plan (filed by the derivative claimants) - in the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings.

Reprinted with permission from the May 6, 2011 issue of The Legal Intelligencer © 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Over the last 12 months there has been a substantial increase in the number of preference recovery actions filed. The irony created by the current economic environment is that many such defendants are themselves financially distressed and unable to fully satisfy any judgment that might be rendered against them.

Summary

In a 5 page decision signed May 4, 2011, Judge Walsh of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that a proceeding initiated by a Debtor, seeking contribution relating to environmental claims is non-core. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Summary

In a 28 page decision signed April 29, 2011, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that in order for a transfer to be considered “substantially contemporaneous” as used by Bankruptcy Code §547(c), it does not necessarily need to comply with the timing requirements of §547(e). Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Introduction

U.S. federal courts have frequently been referred to as the “guardians of the Constitution.” Under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges are appointed for life by the U.S. president with the approval of the Senate. They can be removed from office only through impeachment and conviction by Congress. The first bill considered by the U.S. Senate—the Judiciary Act of 1789—divided the U.S. into what eventually became 12 judicial “circuits.” In addition, the court system is divided geographically into 94 “districts” throughout the U.S.

We've all heard of Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, but what is Chapter 9? Chapter 9 provides a municipality protection from its creditors while it develops a plan to resolve or adjust its debts. Adjustment of a municipality's debt involves refinancing such debts to (i) extend the time to pay debt obligations or (ii) reduce the amount of interest on such obligations.

In Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill, Ltd.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-8266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2011), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to a small, private leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction that posed no systemic risk to the stability of the financial markets.