In the Matter of TCI 2 Holdings, LLC, 428 B.R. 117 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v. Technical Olympic, S.A. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2010 WL 3835829 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v Credit Suisse (In re Champion Enterprises, Inc.), 2010 WL 3522132 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

On November 17th, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") and its official unsecured creditors' committee filed a joint motion to stay BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited's ("BNY") appeal for 90 days in the "Dante" matter, pending final settlement of the dispute between LBSF and Perpetual Trustee Company Limited ("Perpetual").

In the case of banking institutions dealing with the unique world of insurance insolvency, the results may not be as dramatic as in other cultural clashes, but they can be equally confused. This is because insurance insolvency operates in its own separate world, where the usual rules of bankruptcy do not apply and where, without appropriate safeguards, having a secured claim may not guarantee repayment. For banks and other secured creditors, lending to insurance companies is governed by a separate set of rules to which careful attention must be paid.

In re Young Broadcasting, Inc., et al., 430 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Pursuant to § 1104 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the court may appoint a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. A qualified examiner, with a clearly defined mission, can drastically affect the outcome of the bankruptcy case and directly impact the return to creditors. The difference between a successful financial restructure or liquidation and an investigation yielding little value to the creditors often depends on the approach taken by the examiner and his professionals.

With the flood of debt-heavy capital structures created over the past decade, bankruptcy courts have been left to clean up the remnants of many failed transactions. Given the volume of debt provided, courts are likely to continue to be called upon to determine the relative rights of creditors that result from multi-tiered debt structures.

The "common interest" doctrine allows attorneys representing different clients with aligned legal interests to share information and documents without waiving the work-product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Issues involving the common-interest doctrine often arise during the course of a business restructuring, because restructurings tend to involve various constituencies, including the company, the official committee of unsecured creditors, secured debt holders, other creditors, and equity holders whose legal interests may be aligned at any one time.

In Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., --- S.Ct. ----, 2011 WL 66438 (U.S. 2011), the United States Supreme Court took up the question of whether a Chapter 13 debtor who owns his or her vehicle outright (“free and clear”) may claim an allowance for car ownership costs and thereby reduce the amount that he or she will repay creditors. In her first opinion, Justice Kagan answered simply—no. The Ransom opinion has been seen as a victory for not only credit card companies like the one involved but other creditors, as well.