In this Issue:

- Lenders Beware

- International Insolvency Laws: Will One Size Fit All? The Debate Continues

- ‘Fair and Equitable’ Means More Than Amortization Schedule

- Pre-Petition Security License in Proceeds of FCC License Continues Post-Petition – Tracy Broadcasting Overturned

- Secured Creditor Does Not Participate in Bankruptcy Case, Court Allows Lien to Pass Through Plan Confirmation

- Greens Fees Not ‘Rents, Proceeds or Profits’ of Blanket Lien, and Not Cash Collateral

- Determining Whether a Chapter 11 Plan Is Unconfirmable Without a Confirmation Hearing

- Loan ‘Participant’ that Bears No Risk is Neither a ‘Participant’ nor a Creditor

- Chancery Court Examines Factors of Proximate Cause in Delaware Tortious Interference Claim

- Section 546(b) Filings Sufficient Objection to Overcome Priming Lien of DIP Lender

- Separation of Claims Solely on the Basis of Personal Guaranty Not Permitted

- Discrimination in Classification of Claims Okay, So Long as Not Unfair Discrimination

- Continuing ‘Material’ Obligations Render License Agreement Executory – Lewis Brothers Affirmed

- Court Adopts ‘Addition Theory’ in Applying Unnecessary Adequate Protection Payments

- Counsel’s Corner: News From Reed Smith

An excerpt from "Lenders Beware"

A new troubling case from California allows borrowers to present evidence of prior oral statements of a lender which contradict the terms of the written agreement between the parties with a standard integration clause. Marsha Houston of our Los Angeles office writes more about the case below.

Please see full newsletter below for more information.