The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on October 19, 2010 corrected a bankruptcy court’s calculation of a secured lender group’s superpriority administrative claim more than two years after consummation of the debtors’ chapter 11 reorganization plan. [1] In doing so, the court reconciled the rationale for giving secured lenders “adequate p
Committees
With the economy still lagging and an apparent end to federal assistance for state and local governments, some experts are predicting an increase in chapter 9 bankruptcy filings. Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a rarely used avenue for municipalities and other political subdivisions to obtain relief from creditors.
In In re Boston Generating LLC, a New York bankruptcy judge held that second-lien lenders could object to a debtor’s bid procedures approved by the first-lien lenders despite the terms of an intercreditor agreement. [2] The intercreditor agreement provided the first-lien lenders with the “exclusive right to…make determinations r
In September 2009, the Third Circuit issued a ruling in Wawel Savings Bank v. Jersey Tractor Trailer Training Inc. (In re Jersey Tractor Trailer Training Inc.), 580 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2009), that addressed significant issues that can arise in situations where competing claims to a debtor’s accounts receivable exist between a traditional lender and a factor.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held on Nov. 5, 2009, that a creditor was entitled to its postpetition legal fees incurred on a prepetition indemnity agreement. In affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit explained that the Bankruptcy Code “interposes no bar to recovery.”[1]
In In re Crescent Oil Company, et al., Case No. 09-20258, pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, the court entered an order approving a gifting carve-out that could provide a road map for some undersecured lenders in their dealings with unsecured creditors’ committees.
Credit bidding, which has been used with increasing frequency as a tool for secured creditors to obtain possession of their collateral rather than receive the proceeds of a sale for consideration they view as inadequate, allows a secured creditor to set off sums owed to such secured creditor as a bid in certain sales of property of a debtor’s estate.
Many secured lenders do not realize the risks associated with lending upon collateral involving underground storage tanks (USTs).
Co-Chair
Spencer Fane LLP
Kansas City, MO
(816) 292-8279
Co-Chair
Haynes and Boone, LLP
Houston, TX
(713) 547-2630
Education Director
Spencer Fane LLP
Minneapolis, MN
(612) 268-7062
Membership Relations Director
NextEra Energy Resources
Juno Beach, FL
(561) 310-5028