Lender Had Duty To Investigate Claim to Promissory Note

In a harsh decision for the lender, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has determined that a debtor’s loan may be discharged in chapter 7 bankruptcy— despite the borrower’s admission that his personal financial statement contained materially false representations about his financial condition.

A recent bankruptcy court decision in the Southern District of New York may raise concern among brokerage firms who execute and clear brokerage transactions for hedge funds and similar investment vehicles. The bankruptcy trustee of the Manhattan Investment Fund (which the court found to be a Ponzi scheme and whose principal Michael Berger pled guilty to criminal charges) obtained summary judgment against Bear Stearns requiring it to return to the bankruptcy estate all the margin payments the fund had made in the year before it imploded, totaling $141.4 million.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin lifted a hold on a bankruptcy court order approving Adelphia Communications’ Chapter 11 reorganization plan, thereby enabling Time Warner Cable (TWC) to proceed Tuesday with plans to transform itself into a publicly-traded company. Although U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Gerber signed off on Adelphia’s reorganization plan on January 3, Scheindlin—at the behest of bondholders who objected to the plan—had blocked implementation pending review of the bondholders’ claims.

Entities doing business with a customer that files for bankruptcy protection generally have the right to refuse to continue providing goods or services to the chapter 11 debtor, unless such goods or services are covered by a continuing contract, in which case any forfeiture of the debtor’s rights under the agreement is generally prohibited to afford the debtor a reasonable opportunity to decide what to do with the contract.

Members of the ad hoc shareholders’ committee in the Northwest Airlines reorganization case lost their attempt on March 9 to seal “the amounts of claims or interest [they] owned …, the times when acquired, the amounts paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof.” So held Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Northwest Airlines Corp., following his earlier ordering of the disclosure of trading details.

A court-approved pre-plan settlement that would have resolved a dispute between a Chapter 11 creditors’ committee and the debtor’s secured lenders over the lenders’ liens was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 5. Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Iridium Operating LLC). The settlement also would have funded massive litigation against the debtor’s former parent, Motorola Inc.

Motorola’s Successful Argument

In re Corporateand Leisure Event Productions, Inc.,1 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona held that a state court lacks the power to enter an order in a receivership proceeding preventing the receivership defendant from filing a petition in bankruptcy.

In a recent ruling likely to be of great interest to debtors and creditors alike, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Court”) ruled in MC Asset Recovery v. Southern Company1 (the “Southern Co. Litigation”) that fraudulent transfer claims held by a bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession under the Bankruptcy Code continue to be viable at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case, even if all creditors’ claims have already been satisfied in full pursuant to a plan of reorganization.

A company’s failure to meaningfully market its assets led to the dismissal of its attempted chapter 11 reorganization. As a result, a Massachusetts court held in a detailed opinion that an acquiring company was the successor to the company it acquired, and therefore liable for an $8.8 million debt.

In Litton Loan Servicing, LP v. Garvida, No. 04-17846 (9th Cir. BAP July 31, 2006), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit addressed two independent but related questions: (1) what procedure is necessary to object to a properly filed proof of claim, and (2) who bears the burden of proof, and the correlative risk of nonpersuasion, with regard to a disputed claim.