On May 24, 2007, optional federal charter (OFC) legislation was reintroduced into the Senate as the National Insurance Act of 2007 (S. 40) (NIA), co-sponsored by John Sununu (R-NH) and Tim Johnson (D-SD). A similar bill is expected to be reintroduced into the House by Ed Royce (R-CA) in the coming weeks. The bill closely resembles the original legislation filed last year by the same co-sponsors. The major changes in the new bill are provisions concerning surplus lines/nonadmitted insurers and the insolvency/guaranty funds.
On Friday, March 3, 2006, Dana Corporation and certain of its affiliated companies (collectively, “Dana") filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in New York. None of Dana's foreign incorporated affiliates are included in this bankruptcy petition and as such, any transaction with such affiliates should continue in the normal course. However, as a result of the bankruptcy filing, an automatic stay is in effect prohibiting creditors from seeking to take action to collect any amounts due to them from Dana which arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
One of the most significant changes to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the 2005 amendments was the absolute limit placed on extensions of the exclusivity periods. Courts no longer have the discretion to extend a debtor’s exclusive periods to file and solicit a plan beyond 18 months and 20 months, respectively, after the petition date. Although the legislative history contains no explanation for why this change was made, Congress presumably intended to accelerate the reorganization process or facilitate the prospects for competing plans in large, complex cases.
On March 15, 2007, with Jones Day’s assistance as bankruptcy counsel, FLYi, Inc. (“FLYi”), Independence Air, Inc. (“Independence”) and their affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) obtained confirmation of their chapter 11 plan under the “cramdown” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The plan, which become effective on March 30, 2007, will distribute approximately $150 million to unsecured creditors. In ruling on confirmation of the plan, the U.S.
The ability to borrow money during the course of a bankruptcy case is an important tool available to a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”). Often times, the debtor’s most logical choice for a lender is one with an existing pre-bankruptcy relationship with the debtor. As a condition to making new loans, however, lenders commonly require the debtor to waive its right to pursue avoidance or lender liability actions against the lender based upon pre-bankruptcy events.
“Give ups” by senior classes of creditors to achieve confirmation of a plan have become an increasingly common feature of the chapter 11 process, as stakeholders strive to avoid disputes that can prolong the bankruptcy case and drain estate assets by driving up administrative costs.
When a retail business becomes a debtor in bankruptcy, it often decides to trim its operations by closing some of its retail stores. This strategy inevitably leaves the debtor with unnecessary leases. Instead of simply rejecting the leases, retail debtors often assume the agreements and assign them to other entities. The assumption and assignment of the unnecessary leases may allow a debtor to avoid potentially significant rejection damage claims from landlords.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of estate property did not preclude the enforcement of an arbitration provision.
Is a landlord’s ability to recover repair costs chargeable to the lessee limited because such repair costs are included in “damages resulting from the termination of a lease of real property” pursuant to section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code? In In re Foamex International, Inc., 2007 WL 1461954 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2007), the bankruptcy judge said “Yes.”
On July 12, 2007, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that, where a vehicle causing an accident is owned by a governmental entity and is insured by an insolvent insurer, the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund is not obligated to compensate the injured individual unless and until the injured individual's own uninsured motor vehicle coverage has been exhausted. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Premier Ins. Co., 07-SJC-09793 (July 12, 2007).