We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-15 of 15

Supreme Court affirms secured creditors’ credit bid rights under plan

  • Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 1 2012

The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that secured creditors have a statutory right to credit bid their debt at an asset sale conducted under a so-called "cramdown" plan

Eleventh Circuit reverses TOUSA district court decision and holds lenders liable for fraudulent transfer

  • Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 21 2012

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, on May 15, 2012, reversed a district court's February 2011 decision that lenders were not liable on a fraudulent transfer claim

Eighth Circuit BAP affirms lender’s loss of possessory lien

  • Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 4 2013

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender "lost its possessory lien when it turned the

Appeals court orders immediate payment of DIP lender's commitment and facility funding fees

  • Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 28 2007

District Judge James D. Zagel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 9, 2007, ordered a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to "immediately" pay its so-called "commitment" and "DIP Facility Funding" fees

Champerty clarified: a victory for activist distressed debt and claims investors

  • Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2009

In a decision to be hailed by buyers of distressed debt and bankruptcy claims on the secondary loan market, on Oct. 15, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in a fact-specific ruling, held that an assignment of claim does not violate New York’s champerty statute (forbidding trading in litigation claims) if the purpose of the assignment is to collect damages by means of a lawsuit for losses on a debt instrument in which the assignee holds a pre-existing proprietary interest