Author Archives: Jeffrey H Taub

Radlax Review – Summary of Petitioners’ Reply Brief

As part of our continuing coverage of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, this is one of a series of posts summarizing the briefs filed with the Supreme Court. This post summarizes the petitioners’ reply brief, filed with Court on March 31, 2012. In the brief, RadLAX argues that the reading of section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code by Amalgamated (the Respondent) is flawed and that credit bidding does not always maximize the value of the estate. Additionally, RadLAX denies Amalgamated’s allegations that the proposed plan prohibited credit bidding to benefit insiders or a favored third-party bidder and accuses Amalgamated of working to prevent confirmation of a plan that would benefit all creditors. Continue reading

Radlax Review: Summary of Amici Briefs

As part of our continuing coverage of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, this is one of a series of posts summarizing the briefs filed with the Supreme Court. This post summarizes the arguments in the four amici briefs filed with the Court. The United States government, two groups of law professors and a coalition of financial industry trade groups filed amici briefs. The amici reprise many of the arguments raised in the respondent’s brief and all four argued in support of the position that secured creditors must be allowed to credit bid under a plan that provides for the sale of assets free and clear of liens and encumbrances. Continue reading

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Holds Debtor-Lessee Cannot Reject Lease Until It Surrenders Possession Of The Premises

On February 24, 2012, Judge Kevin Gross of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the debtor-lessee’s rejection of a lease cannot become effective so long as a non-debtor sublessee maintained possession of the leased premises. The court held that under the Bankruptcy Code and the rejection order governing the case, the Debtors were required to deliver actual possession of the property to the landlord, merely surrendering their own interests in the property was not sufficient. See In re Amicus Wind Down Corp., No. 11-13167, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 662 (Bankr. D. Del Feb. 24, 2012). Continue reading

RadLAX Review: Summary of Respondents’ Brief in Supreme Court Credit Bidding Case

As part of our continuing coverage of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, this is one of a series of posts summarizing the briefs filed with the Supreme Court. This post summarizes the respondents’ brief, which urges the Court to affirm the decision of the Seventh Circuit prohibiting a debtor from pursuing confirmation of a plan that provides for the sale of certain assets free and clear of liens and encumbrances without permitting a secured creditor the opportunity to credit bid. Continue reading

RadLAX Review: Summary of Petitioners’ Brief in Supreme Court Credit Bidding Case

As part of our continuing coverage of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, this is one of a series of posts summarizing the briefs filed with the Supreme Court. This post summarizes the petitioners’ brief, arguing that section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankrutpcy Code permits confirmation of a plan that denies secured creditors their right to credit bid. Continue reading

RadLAX Review: Supreme Court to Consider Validity of Plan Sale Without Credit Bidding in RadLAX Gateway Hotel

This spring the Supreme Court will consider a critical bankruptcy issue: whether a debtor may sell assets free and clear of liens without permitting a secured creditor to credit bid. Restructuring Review will be providing extensive ongoing coverage of this case: RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166. This first entry looks at Cadwalader’s prior coverage of key rulings along the road to the Supreme Court and the schedule of key upcoming dates. Continue reading

Time to Roll the Dice on Online Gaming?

On December 23, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) issued a memorandum opinion dated September 20, 2011, eliminating one of the federal barriers to legalizing internet gambling and opening the door for the possibility of a regulatory regime shift.[1] In the OLC Opinion, the Department of Justice addressed an apparent conflict between the Wire Act and UIGEA and concluded that “interstate transmissions of wire communications that do not relate to a sporting event or contest” fall outside the reach of the Wire Act. Finding that the Federal Wire Act does not prohibit the use of out-of-state transaction processors to sell in-state lottery tickets over the internet or the transmission of lottery data across state lines, the OLC Opinion reverses the long-held position that the Wire Act applied to all interstate gambling, whether sports-related or not. Although it may take some time to determine the ultimate effect of the OLC Opinion, now that the Justice Department has clarified its view that the Wire Act does not broadly prohibit online wagering (unless it relates to sporting events or contests), the advance of internet gaming appears inevitable. Continue reading

When Tribal Gaming Goes Sour – Rights & Remedies in an Unclear Legal Environment

Although the steep downturn in the U.S. gaming industry that began in 2008 appears to be easing for the time being, many mid-market gaming companies are still encountering difficulties servicing their debt as consumer spending slowly creeps back. In 2009, the Restructuring Review ran a two-part series on the strategies available to gaming companies seeking to restructure their debts, and the challenges facing creditors who must choose between writing down their investments or attempting to foreclose on their collateral. This article examines additional and unique challenges facing creditors attempting to restructure debt issued by tribal gaming entities. Continue reading