The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has issued a pair of rulings in a case involving high-stakes litigation—with a claim in excess of $230 million, including $3 million in postpetition attorneys’ fees and costs. Beyond the high stakes, the court’s conclusions in Centre Ins. Co. v. SNTL Corp. (In re SNTL Corp.), 380 B.R. 204 (9th Cir. BAP 2007) have far-reaching implications; they are likely to affect a multitude of financing transactions that become entangled in bankruptcy.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has held that postpetition financing did not receive automatic status as an administrative expense claim under section 346(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the creditor could not object to confirmation of the Debtor’s plan on the grounds that all administrative expense claims would not be paid in full. In re Mayco Plastics, Inc., 379 B.R. 691 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008).
A federal bankruptcy court in Florida has addressed an issue of first impression in its district regarding the degree of error necessary to render a financing statement “seriously misleading” under UCC 9-506.
Previously, we have discussed the risks involved in failing to name the debtor correctly on a financing statement. See CRaB Alert, February 2007, p. 14, “Calling Borrower ‘Mike’ Leads To Failure To Perfect.”
A federal district court in Michigan has affirmed a bankruptcy court’s refusal to accept a higher bid for various estate assets because the bid was made after the close of the auction, albeit prior to the hearing to confirm the auction results. Evangelista v. Opperman (In re Sebert), No. 07-15509 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2008).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a bankruptcy court’s equitable subordination order on June 20, 2008. Wooley v. Faulkner (In re SI Restructuring, Inc.), ____ F.3d __, 2008 WL2469406 (5th Cir. 2008). According to the court, subordination of the insiders’ secured claims was “inappropriate” because the bankruptcy trustee had failed to show that the defendant insiders’ “loans to the debtor harmed either the debtor or the general creditors.” Id., at *1. The court also rejected the trustee’s “deepening insolvency” argument on the facts and as a matter of law.
On June 16th, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on how debtors will sell assets in bankruptcy. InFlorida Department of Revenue v.
Resolving a split among various circuits, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the exemption from state stamp taxes under section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to asset sales under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code that took place before confirmation of a debtor’s chapter 11 plan—an event that may take months or years to accomplish.1
Given the state of the economy, it will not be a rare occurrence in the short term for a supplier to receive a request to sell and deliver further goods to a purchaser who has filed proceedings under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code — and who is already indebted for unpaid pre-filing sales.
On May 23, 2008, in American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. v. Lehman Bros. Inc.(In re American Home Mortgage Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that BBB-rated mortgagebacked notes are eligible for the Bankruptcy Code’s repurchase agreement safe harbor as “interests in mortgage loans”.
Many of the cases we have reported on continue to be hotly debated among the parties and are subject to appeals or motions for reconsideration. In an effort to keep you updated, we have highlighted some of these developments below.
Musicland