SENATE DEMOCRATS LOOK TO REVIVE CRAMDOWN PROPOSAL

As the foreclosure rate continues to climb, Senate Democrats are taking a second look at a failed proposal to allow the modification of troubled borrowers' mortgages in chapter 13, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review reported today. At the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts today, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) called on the Senate to adopt the proposal he's been championing since 2007 that was defeated in the Spring of 2008 and then in the Senate earlier this year: allowing bankruptcy judges the power to cram down the mortgages of homeowners in chapter 13 bankruptcy. Subcommittee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) warned that failing to allow cramdowns this time around would exacerbate the economic downturn. Yet opponents of cramdowns, including Ranking Member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), argued that allowing cramdowns would create troubling consequences both for lenders and for future borrowers. ABI Resident Scholar Prof. Adam Levitin of Georgetown University Law countered that lenders wouldn't punish borrowers with higher prices as long as cramdowns didn't cause them to lose more than they would in a foreclosure. However, this isn't possible, he said, because bankruptcy law requires that creditors recover at least the same amount of their claims in a bankruptcy as they would in a liquidation or foreclosure. Mark A. Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, said such efforts wrongly assume that the foreclosure crisis was caused by predatory lending practices that created so many subprime borrowers. Rather, he claims that the crisis was actually caused by the combination of falling home values and what he called "negative income shock," including job losses.

As all my loyal readers know, I am a big fan of mortgage cramdown legislation, as it allows owner occupied real estate to be maintained by the homeowner. While this creates a short term loss for the banks, it forces them to have their books reflect reality. Good Senator Durbin! Let's get this done.

Portions of this post were contributed by David Asmus, Esq. from the Hinshaw & Culbertson, St. Louis Office.

Cubs Bankruptcy illustrates efficacy of a 363 sale.

The Cubs prospective bankruptcy is a good illustration of how Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in complicated and multi-dimensional businesses.  The Cubs is a good business and makes money.  The ivy covered walls of Wrigley Field are a beautiful backdrop to a great baseball experience, and occasionally, I say occasionally, good baseball.  The bad news is that the Cubs are owned by the same company that owns the Chicago Tribune, which while a great paper, is not a profitable business.  To make matters worse, there are bank loans of the Tribune Company which  secures the Cubs.  So, how can you sell the Cubs without either paying off all the secured claims of the Tribune Company or getting the secured creditors consent?

Section 363. 

Section 363 allows a debtor to sell assets over existing liens if the Court approves the sale. 

Section 363 (f) provides that: The trustee may sell property under subsection (b) or (c) of this section free and clear of any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate, only if—

(1) applicable nonbankruptcy law permits sale of such property free and clear of such interest;

(2) such entity consents;

(3) such interest is a lien and the price at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on such property;

(4) such interest is in bona fide dispute; or

(5) such entity could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of such interest.

In the case of the Cubs, like most 363 sales, the sale would most likely be approved under section (5), which is really a "catch all."  Also, Court's find "bona fide" disputes often.  Regardless, the Tribune Company would be able to sell their most valuable asset.  In fact, the threat of bankruptcy, will most likely force the secured creditor to consent. 

So, have a valuable asset that you need to sell over excessive liens.  Can't get the secured lender to consent.  Use section 363 to leverage the secured lenders, or if they won't agree, file bankruptcy and sell the business in a bankruptcy court authorized sale.

And I didn't ever use any baseball metaphor.

Could Chapter 11 Help the Chicago Cubs Turn the Page? | Bleacher Report

GM pledges 'new beginning' as it exits Chapter 11 - MarketWatch

Sometimes I feel like Obama supporters, me included, expected him to be the next political Babe Ruth, but instead he turns out to be the next Wade Boggs; the greatest singles hitter of all time.  I mean this man seems incredibly efficient, but sometimes without imagination and passion. 

Take, for instance, GM's recent emergence from bankruptcy.  As a bankruptcy attorney I am amazed at the efficiency and effectiveness of the quick exit of GM from it's Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  It is clear that the entire bankruptcy was well conceived and perfectly executed.  It was a classic bootstrap restructure, where the secured obligations, including the government, were converted to equity, and the unsecured debt, to the tune of about 40 billion, was essentially extinguished.  This will fit neatly into a bankruptcy textbook one day. 

That is the good news.  The bad news is that GM is essentially the same company now that it was when it filed Chapter 11.  Not in terms of it's debt structure, which is imminently improved, but in it's technology.  There was no "Manhattan Project" for a new propulsion system, no green mandates(all of the talk of a green GM is really nothing more than a marketing piece), nothing risky, challenging or controversial.  In fact, the talking heads on Fox News, which find fault in his Harvard Educated diction, had nothing to say.  Why, because it was without incident.  The Obama administration has simply fixed the broken company. 

Maybe I shouldn't complain.  For now, 3 million auto related jobs are safe.  This is another shelf placed underneath a falling economy.  This was a solid single against arguably the best pitcher in baseball (the figurative disaster of an economy and the administrative morass of one of the largest companies in the world), but I was hoping for a big swing, and maybe a home run. 

GM pledges 'new beginning' as it exits Chapter 11 - MarketWatch

Strike three for Lenny Dykstra: Former Met files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

In a fairly sad story that barely made the major newspapers, former Met and Phillies outfielder, and stock prognosticator, Lenny Dykstra was forced to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to shield his already dwindling assets.  This wasn't a shock to anyone with a premium cable channel, who saw the Real Sports exclusive in which Lenny tried to convince Bernard Goldberg that he wasn't broke as he had almost $1,000.00 in his wallet.  It was really a sad visual image, one of a former professional athlete taken down by the real world of finance.

This story would not be novel or shocking if Lenny Dykstra had just been a former athlete.  The sad truth, is that former athletes are prone to financial troubles, and one report had over 70% of former NBA players filing bankruptcy within 10 years of the end of their career.

But Lenny Dykstra wasn't your average former athlete, as  had a second career, one after baseball, that of a high finance, stock picking extraordinare.  Yes, the hard-nosed instinctual ball-player, was a regular on CNBC, regularly extorting his genius as a finance guru.  This part of his life, interestingly enough, got no mention in the news today, and I doubt, will get little comment on CNBC.

This, my friends, is the real story.  Lenny Dykstra, as with Jim Cramer, got sucked into the finance porn vortex--albeit from different universes.   As entertainment and business news blurred to an indiscernible pulp in the 1990's, Lenny Dykstra was the perfect front man.  Articulate in the Joe the Plumber type of way, forcefully, certain, and believing in stocks with a faith-based furry, he was Everyman who wanted to make a million.  And he did it, first with car-washes, then with stocks, and melding personality and instincts all in one, finally, as a celebrity.  As a commentator he was perfect, all financial machismo, without the momentary glimpses of humanity and reason you get with Jim Cramer; you know, the every once in a while where he recognizes he is an emperor without clothes.

Now, with his financial life in ruins, the cameras forgetting he even existed, and even his wife gone, he gets to face the financial world like everyone else.  That is, with confusion, fear and uncertainty.  I would hope that this is a lesson to all, that entertainment and money don't mix, but doubt that other than this rather unread blog, anyone will comment on it.  In fact, rather than use this as an example, I am sure that CNBC, FOX or some other channel that claims to give you the inside scoop on the world of finance is desperately searching for the next instinct based, charismatic, former athlete to add to it's day-time lineup.  Where is Dennis Rodman anyway?  

 

 

 

Strike three for Lenny Dykstra: Former Met files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

UK's Riversimple, China-based Horizon Fuel Cell debut 2-seat, hydrogen car prototype - WXIN

In a back page story on most almost defunct newspapers, a British company, with the assistance of a former Porsche executive has developed a car propelled by hydrogen which will be leased for the sum total of $315.00 per month, which includes all of the necessary fuel.  Imagine that, $315.00 per month for not only the car but the gas.  Oh yeah, and the vehicle produces exactly 0 emissions.  0.  The carbon footprint on this vehicle also 0.  Need for oil from hostile countries that fund and train terrorists with designs on destroying us..0 too.  Money in the pockets of greedy oil executives and oil companies... 0, 0..0 and 0.  Oh, I digress.  The response to this revelation and product that should have been hailed as something close to a cure for cancer, ho hum....., let's get back to Carrie Prejean 

 

Why no fanfare, excitement, government assistance for this remarkable company? Because this product does not fit within the existing  automobile infrastructure.  Same with Germany and Japan, the other two countries that build most world cars.  This is an example of how subsidies business can and will destroy innovation.  We don't need better cars, we need consumers to continue to purchase are bad cars.  Innovation is messy, it requires retraining and retooling.   Current auto executives will be out of work and we can't have that.  With the U.S. government essentially owning the means for 2/3rd of U.S. auto production, we are in a unique opportunity to capitalize on this new technology.  There really is no other option, or hope.

UK's Riversimple, China-based Horizon Fuel Cell debut 2-seat, hydrogen car prototype - WXIN

Commodity v. High Tech: How we need new technology in automobiles

I think you will notice that most of the companies that have filed bankruptcy over the past 9 months are producing commodities as opposed to high tech products. In fact, many high tech companies, including RIM and Apple are actually doing quite well. In contrast to lots of the other negative news out there, I think this is actually a good sign. Moreover, if the government takes note, it will encourage it to take the right steps with regard to the ongoing automobile bankruptcies.

A commodity, as defined by Webster's dictionary is:

A physical substance....... which is interchangeable with another product of the same type, and which investors buy or sell, usually through futures contracts. The price of the commodity is subject to supply and demand. Risk is actually the reason exchange trading of the basic agricultural products began. For example, a farmer risks the cost of producing a product ready for market at sometime in the future because he doesn't know what the selling price will be.

High tech proprietary products, however, are not subject to the same economic principals as commodities. For instance, Apple has essentially been able to set the price of Iphones for the last few years. As such, it is generally better for a company to be selling high tech proprietary products, as opposed to commodities.

Alas, all products become commodities. Even Iphones are having significant pricing pressures as competitors such as the Palm Pre enter the market.

The genius of the U.S. capitalist system is that it has always provided the greatest incentive for the creation of high tech proprietary products. That is why we lead the way in early industrialization, the computer revolution, and the information technology boom. Unlike our European counterparts, we were not hamstrung by entrenched businesses and the business interference of royalty that were able to mold the laws and markets to encourage the continued purchase of their outdated and fungible products.

In contrast to the U.S., look at countries that really heavily or solely on a commodity based economy. Take for instance, Saudi Arabia. When the price of oil drops, so does Saudi Arabia's economy.

Unfortunately, while we have benefits by a diverse and fluid economy in which new technology is always replacing tired commodities, some businesses have worked against this dynamic system to stack the deck in their favor. Many of our industries have promoted laws and regulation that encourage the artificially inflated prices for their commodities. There is no better example of this than the pharmaceutical companies. The same companies that created lifesaving drugs during the first half of the 20th century, but morphed into sales, marketing and lobbying companies during the second half. Name one drug that has cured anything over the past 25 years. Can't, can you? However, you can probably name 5 diseases that didn't exist 25 years ago, and the corresponding drug that can "cure" it. Yes, I know, we are all grateful that "restless leg syndrome" has been eliminated from our life. All of this culminated with the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization and Improvement Act, signed into law in 2003, which made it a crime to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices.

Applied to the automotive industry and the recent bankruptcies, a substantial part of the vehicle has become a commodity. Don't cry to much, as the industry has had almost a century of operating as a high tech businesses with the same technology. That is why Hyundai has one of the top luxury cars in the world, the Genesis, at such a cheap price. The reason for this, is twofold. First, that the existing infrastructure is set up to make the internal combustion engine. I have blogged about this in detail, as well as the need for the government to facilitate a move to new technology. The second, is government incentives that encourage consumption of petroleum. This lead to GM tabling the eclectic car, though it had an over 12 year head start. This needs to be eliminated immediately. If higher gas taxes aren't palatable, substantial investment in new propulsion technology is crucial. After all, the Pruis, which is the only production car with a high tech engine is selling like crazy. Why? Well there is a certain amount of brand status, but also because it is a silent engine. This was emphasized on the show Weeds, where UTURN, the local drug dealer outfitted all of his couriers with Prius, so "no one knew when they were coming." If the current automotive bankrupties are done right, we can revolutionize the automobile with high tech proprietary technology, no one will know that America is coming, and we will rule the next generation of car manufacturing.

Seinfeld Theory Argued In Coyotes Case - Bankruptcy Beat - WSJ

Could it be any cooler!  A bankruptcy lawyer in the Phoenix Coyote bankruptcy used a Seinfeld reference in the case--despite his wit, he lost.  Specifically, it was the returning the jacket for "spite" episode--which should have been as good of a reason as any to return a jacket.  I think that Seinfeld is significantly metaphoric, and there are a number of episodes that could be used in a legal case.  For one, I like the rental car episode, where despite the " reservation" there was no car.  Jerry noted that anyone can "take a reservation," but having the car is the hard part.  This is true in all types of cases, where anyone can make a representation with regard to a number of things, though it is a rare few that can come through on them.  Also, who can forget the final episode where Jerry and the gang were convicted mostly because the were of bad character.  As Baboo testified to, "you are bad man, a very bad man."  I have had the occasional client who lost a case simply because he or she was a "bad man."   Anyone else who can come up with a Seinfeld episode with legal parallels get's extra credit.  Come on, now!  Let's hear it.

Seinfeld Theory Argued In Coyotes Case - Bankruptcy Beat - WSJ