In an unusual ruling recently entered in the Chapter 11 case of Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC and certain of its subsidiaries, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana equitably subordinated the claim of a non-insider senior secured lender. While the equitable subordination of a claim is rare, the Yellowstone decision may signal that courts will be looking at loan transactions with a highly critical eye.

In Hutson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

In In re City of Vallejo,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held recently that the City of Vallejo has the authority to reject its collective bargaining agreements with the city’s firefighters and electrical workers as part of its chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding without going through the process detailed in section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court determined that a municipality does not need to comply with the stringent requirements that corporations face when seeking to reject a collective bargaining agreement (a “CBA”).

The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.  

AMUSEMENT PARKS

Theme park operator Six Flags files Chapter 11; seeks expedited approval of pre-pack plan.  

AUTOMOTIVE  

Earlier today, the FDIC was appointed as receiver of three banks: Southern Community Bank, Cooperative Bank and First National Bank of Anthony, bringing the total number of bank failures in the nation this year to 40.

A Louisiana District court finds that the filing of an allegedly time barred proof of claim by a creditor does not amount to a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. B-Real, LLC v. Rogers et al., 2009 WL 1405844 (M.D.La. May 19, 2009) (Ruling on Appeal)

A Louisiana District Court ruling provides that a creditor did not violate the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing what were alleged to be three time-barred proofs of claim based upon underlying debt allowed under Louisiana law.

On May 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the “Credit CARD Act of 2009” or the “Act”), Public Law No: 111-24. The Act is intended to crackdown on certain credit card practices perceived as abusive – such as retroactive interest rate increases, "double cycle" billing and the offering of "fee harvester" cards. For credit counseling agencies and those that advertise and market debt management plan services to consumers, the Act is notable in three primary ways:

Pending motions in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in General Growth Properties’ (GGP) bankruptcy case (Case No. 09-11977) are expected to shed new light on how courts may treat real estate special-purpose entities in bankruptcy and may also have implications for the efficacy of bankruptcy-remote SPE structures used in asset-backed securitization transactions.

Only twice has the U.S. Supreme Court spoken directly to environmental issues in bankruptcy – until now. Today the Supreme Court ruled that certain claims can in fact be barred by a bankruptcy court's channeling injunction. The case is particularly important in light of the major corporate bankruptcies now under way in the industrial sector, where environmental costs can drive the success or failure of a restructuring.

Century Indemnity Company (“CIC”) reinsured The Home Insurance Company (“Home”). Due to Home’s liquidation proceedings, which began in 2003, CIC became fully liable for a $13 million settlement of certain environmental claims for which CIC and Home were both primarily liable under the parties’ respective insurance contracts. CIC, a debtor in the Home proceedings, sought a setoff of $8 million against other obligations owed to Home, for Home’s share of the settlement that CIC paid in full. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order permitting the setoff.