This week, in a 2-1 decision affirming the District Court’s reversal of a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured creditors do not have a right as a matter of law to credit bid their claim at an auction pursuant to a plan of reorganization where the debtor intends to impose the plan on its secured creditors through a “cramdown” under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code; i.e., a plan providing the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claim.

On November 12th, the Third Circuit affirmed both bankruptcy and district court findings that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a claim seeking rescission of a mortgage filed in an adversarial action in federal bankruptcy court after a state court entered a default foreclosure order on that mortgage. The Third Circuit held further that the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff on her Truth in Lending Act claim was proper.

This article was originally published in Law360. 

Crumbs Bake Shop Inc. shut down in July and filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey court that same month. The bankruptcy court ordered an auction sale, and a purchaser has come forward to buy all of the company’s assets.

On September 14, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's finding that a failed bank's parent did not make a capital maintenance commitment to the bank. After the parent filed for bankruptcy, the FDIC was appointed receiver for the bank. The FDIC then sought payment from the parent under the statute requiring a party seeking reorganization to fulfill commitments to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.

A New York bankruptcy court recently considered the effects of Bankruptcy Code section 552 on a lender’s security interest in the proceeds of an FCC broadcast license and held that a prepetition security interest extended to proceeds received from a post-petition transfer of the debtors’ FCC license. Sprint Nextel Corp. v. U.S. Bank. N.A. (In re Terrestar Networks, Inc.), Case No. 10-15446, Adv. Pro. No. 10-05461 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011). This result directly conflicts with Spectrum Scan LLC v. Valley Bank and Trust Co. (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), 438 B.R.

On April 12th, a federal district court addressed the in pari delicto defense, including the sole actor exception to the adverse interest exception. In the instant case, a litigation trust created in bankruptcy court to pursue the debtor's claims sued Credit Suisse for allegedly assisting the debtor's founders' looting of the debtor's subsidiaries. Credit Suisse sought summary judgment, asserting the in pari delicto defense. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the founders so dominated the subsidiaries that the subsidiaries lacked a separate existence.

On September 15th, the Sixth Circuit resolved a conflict among the district courts within the circuit. It held that a bank holding the undersecured home mortgage of a Chapter 13 debtor who is in arrears at the time of filing, is entitled to receive under the Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan fees and costs in the arrearage cure. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Tucker.  

On March 18th, the Fifth Circuit held that a U.S. bankruptcy court may offer avoidance relief under a foreign country's law in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiffs had been appointed trustees by a Nevis court in a Nevis winding up petition. Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 15 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. alleging that the debtor had transferred assets to put them out of the reach of the Nevis court. The U.S.

During this time of economic upheaval amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, many corporate borrowers are faced with the inability to service debt obligations, and creditors may seek to hold corporate officers and directors accountable as a result. In these uncertain times, it is wise to review the fiduciary duties of corporate directors and officers and the effects of financial distress on such duties.[1] The following Q&A provides guidance on this issue from a Delaware law perspective, as Delaware is the most commonly cited jurisdiction for corporate governance.