Following recall notices for its ignition switches in February 2014, General Motors, LLC (“New GM”) has been hit with at least 50 class actions and two individual suits in not less than 20 federal and two state courts asserting claims against New GM for defective vehicles and parts sold by Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”).
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.
On May 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) issued an opinion with significant ramifications for law firms seeking to hire former partners from bankrupt law firms. At issue was whether, under New York partnership law, the law firms that hired former partners of Coudert Brothers LLP (Coudert), a dissolved and bankrupt law partnership, must account for profits that the former Coudert partners earned while completing work on open client matters they took with them from Coudert.
An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee. Yessenow v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2011 WL 2623307 (Ill. App. Ct. June 30, 2011).
In addition to the cases discussed in "Considerations in Terminating an Insolvent Franchisee" in the June 24, 2010, Franchise Alert (available at www.wileyrein.com/insolvent_franchisee), two recently reported decisions have looked at franchisor attempts to gain relief from bankruptcy stays in order to enforce post-termination provisions.
United States Supreme Court
Washington, D.C.
November 3, 2009
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has held that an excess liability insurer had no standing to object to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtor's reorganization plan where the plan, although requiring contributions from the insurer's policyholder, was not contingent on the policyholder obtaining any funds or proceeds from its insurer. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al. v. North Am. Refractories Cos. et al., Civ. Action No. 07-1750, Bankr. Case No. 02-20198 (JFK) (W. D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2008).
The Bankruptcy Code facilitates asset sales in chapter 11 by offering incentives to buyers and flexibility in structuring and timing the sale. A buyer can acquire assets free and clear of liens and is permitted to "cherry-pick" the debtor's contracts and leases to select only those it wants to keep. The assets and sale process can be structured in many ways, including auctions, private sales, lot or bulk sales, and going concern transactions.
The Key Parties
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to hear a chapter 11 debtor's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, which the debtor filed after its chapter 11 plan had been confirmed and substantially consummated. Valley Historic Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, No. 06-1571,___ F.3d ___, WL 1439734 (4th Cir. May 17, 2007). This decision delineates the limits of bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over claims filed by the debtor after plan confirmation.
Background
On April 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane issued an opinion in the Waterford Wedgwood bankruptcy discussing at length one of the defenses available to preference defendants. The opinion turns upon the scope of “ordinary business terms,” the objective prong of the ordinary course of business defense.