Summary

In a 15 page decision signed yesterday, April 5, 2011, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that when a company receives pleadings in a bankruptcy case, even if served on their “doing business as” name, they have received proper service. Judge Sontchi’s opinion is available here.

Background

On February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declining to modify the September 20, 2008 Sale Order that approved the sale to Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) of assets collectively comprising the bulk of the North American investment banking and capital markets business of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and certain of their affiliates (together “Lehman”).

When a special servicer or third-party manager takes over a distressed asset or franchise, no one thinks about labor and employment issues until a problem surfaces. While a special servicer or third-party manager with its own employees in the area can usually expect a smooth transition, these arrangements often occur in places that are far-removed from the headquarters or home office. A special servicer may simply assume that it is taking over the former operator’s employees, and not think twice about other labor issues.

Introduction

Vendors who sell goods to customers are probably familiar with the issues that arise when the customer later files bankruptcy.

Earlier this month, Avidity Partners, LLC ("Avidity"), in its role as claims agent for the bankruptcy estates of AbitibiBowater, Inc, et al ("Debtors"), began filing avoidance actions against various defendants. As alleged in the complaints, on April 16, 2009, Debtors filed petitions for bankruptcy with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

In PLR 201051019 (12/23/2010), the Service ruled that in computing a consolidated group’s §382 limitation after filing for bankruptcy relief, all of its outstanding liabilities before the ownership change should be taken into account at the adjusted issue price, regardless of whether the obligations were subsequently discharged in whole or in part during the recognition period.

Recently, several courts have added to the growing body of decisions construing intercreditor agreements in bankruptcy cases.

Reorganization or debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing has become an increasing source of litigation.

A popular line of thinking among bankruptcy practitioners and commentators holds that substantive consolidation – the combining of assets and liabilities of a debtor and another debtor or non-debtor entity to satisfy creditor claims against both entities ratably from the resulting pool – is an equitable remedy of judicial invention with no specific foundation in the Bankruptcy Code.