In a decision issued yesterday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that insiders can't be given a special opportunity to invest in a bankrupt debtor under the guise of contributing "new value" unless the debtor makes the same investment opportunity available to other potential investors.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana in connection with In re Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. held that electricity was a “good” for purposes of section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. That means that anyone sells electricity to a person who later goes bankrupt is entitled to a high-priority administrative expense claim for the value of the electricity delivered in the 20 days prior to the bankruptcy.

On Dec. 4, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit delivered its long-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.). The Bellingham decision effectively clears away much of the analytical underbrush that had surrounded—at least in the 9th Circuit —several important post-Stern v. Marshall questions.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (“PACA”)¹ is deservedly renowned for its provisions creating a statutory trust on sold perishable commodities, and the products and revenues thereof. See 7 U.S.C. §499e. The PACA statutory trust can have dramatic consequences in the cases of bankrupt produce buyers; produce sellers often are paid in full, ahead of secured creditors holding liens on all inventory and accounts receivable. That is a story often told.

In the last two weeks, the 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals each issued decisions on important intellectual property issues in bankruptcy.

In a decision with significant implications for borrowers and lenders, on May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a bankruptcy court's findings that upstream guarantees and associated liens delivered by a bankrupt debtor's subsidiaries were avoidable as fraudulent transfers.

A new decision from a New York federal district court highlights certain risks faced by persons buying assets out of bankruptcy. Buyers may be subject to successor liability based on the seller's conduct before the bankruptcy if no injury was caused until after the bankruptcy sale. Buyers of bankruptcy assets will need to do additional diligence to ensure that they are not unwittingly acquiring hidden liabilities.

When an FCC licensee goes bankrupt, the question of how to treat the interests of secured lenders is the one that, from time to time, comes up for debate. Two recent cases deal with this issue – one appearing to be an aberration that would make lending to a broadcast licensee difficult if not impossible, while the second providing a more lender-friendly interpretation after a detailed analysis of the history of FCC and court precedent on this issue, affirming what most in the broadcast community have assumed, for most of the last two decades, is settled law. We

To cram-down a chapter 11 plan on non-accepting classes, at least one impaired class must accept the plan, not counting the votes of insiders. In what is likely to be a controversial opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel that the purchaser of a bankruptcy claim was not an “insider” for plan-confirmation purposes, even though the purchaser acquired the claim from the debtor-LLC’s sole member, an insider, under questionable circumstances.

The Delaware bankruptcy court recently denied a debtors’ motion to sell real estate free and clear of a bank’s senior liens on the properties. The court rejected the debtors’ arguments that the bank could be compelled to take less than the full amount of the bank’s debt under section 363(f)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code. The decision is a useful reminder that, in some jurisdictions, a bank holding senior liens may be entitled to veto any sale that does not result in payment-in-full.