Secured creditors and debtor-in-possession (DIP) lenders that rely on standard carve-out provisions to limit the impact of bankruptcy professional fees on their collateral would be well-advised to take notice of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision from earlier this year.
A Chapter 11 debtor "cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure," held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in Blixseth v. Brown that under Barton v. Barbour, a plaintiff must obtain a bankruptcy court's permission before commencing a lawsuit in another forum against a member of the committee of unsecured creditors, and that Stern v. Marshall does not preclude bankruptcy courts from adjudicating such claims on the merits.
Uncertain Treatment of Make-Whole Premiums Upon Bankruptcy-Induced Acceleration and Redemption of Indentures
Make-whole premiums are essentially prepayment penalties imposed on borrowers when loans are paid off in advance of their maturity dates. These premiums remove the borrowers' incentives to refinance whenever interest rates drop, and provide stability and predictability to the world of secured lending.
This article focuses on the impact of section 552 of the Bankruptcy Code, which addresses the effect of a bankruptcy filing on property acquired by the debtor after the filing of the bankruptcy case (referred to as "after-acquired property") and proceeds of pre-bankruptcy collateral.
Any bankruptcy practitioner, upon first contact with a municipal bankruptcy case, may be shocked by the lack of substantive law to be found in Chapter 9. The dearth of detail has long caused bankruptcy lawyers and courts to turn to the far more substantive provisions of Chapter 11 for practical guidance.
Secured creditors and debtor-in-possession (DIP) lenders that rely on standard carve-out provisions to limit the impact of bankruptcy professional fees on their collateral would be well-advised to take notice of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision from earlier this year.
There is a new trend emerging in FCRA litigation involving Chapter 13 bankruptcy, under which debtors propose a repayment plan to make installment payments to creditors over three to five years. Increasingly, plaintiffs are filing suit based on certain credit-reporting actions taken (or not taken) during a pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, after plan confirmation but prior to the entry of the discharge — when a debtor has met all requirements set by the court.
Internet assets generally, and Internet asset licenses in particular, are increasingly subject to bankruptcy proceedings.
Proper notice is a hallmark of all bankruptcy proceedings. If a creditor or party-in-interest has no notice of a particular matter, many courts have ruled that the creditor or party-in-interest will not be bound by a particular court's determination.
