In the case of banking institutions dealing with the unique world of insurance insolvency, the results may not be as dramatic as in other cultural clashes, but they can be equally confused. This is because insurance insolvency operates in its own separate world, where the usual rules of bankruptcy do not apply and where, without appropriate safeguards, having a secured claim may not guarantee repayment. For banks and other secured creditors, lending to insurance companies is governed by a separate set of rules to which careful attention must be paid.

Under Delaware law, do creditors of an insolvent limited liability company have the same standing as creditors of insolvent corporations to pursue derivative claims against directors on behalf of the LLC? Most commentators, and some courts, have assumed that the answer was “yes.” However, the Delaware Court of Chancery in CML V LLC v. Bax, No. 5373-VCL, 2010 WL 4517795 (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010), determined that the plain language of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the LLC Act) denies derivative standing to such creditors.

In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-B-30029 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Young Broadcasting, Inc., et al., 430 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Burtch v. Detroit Forming, Inc. (In re Archway Cookies), 435 B.R. 234 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Reclamation claimants have long enjoyed special protections under Bankruptcy Code section 546(c), which recognizes that “the rights and powers of a trustee... are subject to the right of a seller of goods,” including reclamation rights under Section 2-702 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At a minimum, Section 2-702 clearly requires that a reclamation claimant must make demand upon its buyer in order to reclaim its goods and protect its rights. However, Paramount Home Entertainment Inc. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 3522089 (ED Va., Sept.

At a time when billions of dollars of assets are under the supervision of federal receivers and bankruptcy trustees, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently ruled in favor of an equity receiver and held that in proposing her plan of distribution to investors, she was not bound by the requirements of state law when establishing priorities for and making distributions to investors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Dec. 6, 2010, summarily affirmed a bankruptcy court’s designation of a secured lender’s vote on a reorganization plan in a two-page order, effectively enabling the debtor to cram down the lender’s claim. In re DBSD North America, Inc., __ F.3d__, 2010 WL 4925878 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2010).1 As a result, the lender who bought all of the debtor’s senior first-lien secured debt at par will be paid only interest over a period of four years before its loan matures. SeeIn re DBSD North America, Inc., 419 B.R. 179, 207-08 (Bankr.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.

Introduction