Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements

The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context.  In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”

Asbestos settlement trusts are a major source of payment of asbestos claims in the United States, with over fifty such trusts instituted as of March, 2011.¹ While insurance recoveries are a principal source of funding for these trusts, courts generally have not allowed insurers to challenge chapter 11 plans where they are found to be “insurance neutral.” A plan is insurance neutral where the plan does not increase an insurer’s pre-petition liabilities or impair an insurer’s contractual rights under its insurance policies.

On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.

On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy, Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy, Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.

In late 2011, bondholders in the bankruptcy case of power company Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy) moved for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate certain transactions that occurred immediately prior to the filing of Dynegy's bankruptcy petition. The transactions at issue involve the alleged transfer of millions of dollars in assets to Dynegy's parent company (a non-debtor) approximately two months prior to the bankruptcy filing.

An article by the National Underwriter Company discusses a recent Moody’s report that asbestos claims are again on the rise after years of declining or flat claims.¹ This has led several insurers to increase their asbestos reserves and Moody’s views this trend as a warning flag for the property and casualty insurance industry as a whole.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In particular, the Supreme Court amended Bankruptcy Rule 2019 to clarify the disclosure required of certain parties in interest in a chapter 9 or 11 bankruptcy case.1 These amendments were drafted by a panel of bankruptcy judges and restructuring experts and are intended to resolve a split in decisions concerning the proper application of the current Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

In a case illustrating the effective use of a bankruptcy examiner, the examiner appointed by the court in the North General Hospital bankruptcy case has concluded that the hospital made over $3 million in unauthorized post-bankruptcy filing payments to the detriment of unsecured creditors. Prior to its bankruptcy filing, North General Hospital and certain related corporate debtors operated a hospital in the Harlem section of Manhattan.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. The right examiner, with a clearly defined mission, will have a major influence on the bankruptcy process. The difference between a successful financial restructuring or liquidation-resulting in substantial recoveries for the key constituencies-and a time-consuming (and asset-consuming) meltdown, can depend on the approach of the examiner and the examiner's support team.

United States Supreme Court

Washington, D.C.

November 3, 2009