A recent decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York underscores the risk to junior creditors of not understanding fully the scope of consent given to a senior creditor to modify its senior lending arrangements with a debtor under the terms of an intercreditor agreement. In Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. v.

On January 7, 2013, the Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a dispute concerning the debtors’ use of cash collateral was not subject to arbitration, notwithstanding a broad arbitration clause in the parties’ underlying agreement, because the decision to allow a debtor to use cash collateral constituted a “core” issue and was a fundamental aspect of the bankruptcy process. In re Hostess Brands, Inc., No. 12-22052 (RDD), 2013 WL 82914 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013).

Background

On June 28, 2012, Judge Allan Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York declined to appoint an official committee of equity holders in Kodak’s chapter 11 cases.  The bankruptcy court determined that the appointment of an official committee was not warranted at that time, given that the costs to the bankruptcy estates would be substantial and equity’s interests were already represented by other constituencies seeking to maximize value and by a sophisticatedad hoc group of shareholders.  In re Eastman Kodak Company, Case No

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that a Bankruptcy Judge lacked constitutional authority to issue a final ruling on state law counterclaims by a debtor against a claimant. This is the latest round of a well-known case involving the estate of former model Anna Nicole Smith and the estate of her late husband, wealthy oil magnate J. Howard Marshall.  

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a third party had submitted itself to jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,1 the Supreme Court ruled that a party who has not filed a claim against a bankrupt's estate is not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. A year later, in Langenkamp v.

Part One of this article, published in the last edition of the Restructuring Review, examined recent developments in the gaming industry, focusing on strategies employed by gaming companies to increase liquidity and avoid insolvency. Part Two focuses on how potential buyers can use the bankruptcy process to purchase gaming facilities, free and clear of prior liens, and describes certain complications inherent in the acquisition of this type of asset.

Acquiring Gaming Facilities through Chapter 11

Sale Process

This week, Representative John Conyers introduced the “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009” (H.R. 1106) (the “Act”), which has been circulated in advance of a vote by the House of Representatives anticipated as early as today. Additional amendments have been offered to the bill, but it is unclear which, if any, will be incorporated into the final text. It is not expected that the Senate will consider its version of the bill until mid-March.

In COR Route 5 Co. v. Penn Traffic Co.1 (In re Penn Traffic Co), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a non-debtor party to an executory contract may not, by fulfilling its contractual obligations post-petition, deprive the debtor of its ability to reject an executory contract.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a severance payment made to an executive who worked for both Enron Corp. (“Enron”) and various affiliates of Enron prior to Enron’s filing for bankruptcy was a preferential transfer that could be avoided by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”).1 In reaching this conclusion, the Bankruptcy Court rejected the argument that the severance payment was an “ordinary course” transaction that was protected from avoidance.

On January 30, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held that, pursuant to section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code, a municipal debtor is not required to seek court approval to enter into settlements with and make settlement payments to prepetition creditors during the pendency of its chapter 9 case. The decision demonstrates the broad scope of section 904 and the free reign that a municipal debtor enjoys under that section during the pendency of its chapter 9 case. In re City of Stockton, Cal., Case No. 12-32118 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.