The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a creditor or trustee seeking to recover a subsequent transfer under Section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code need not obtain a judgment of avoidance against the subsequent transferee before proceeding with the recovery action.

On October 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a long-awaited ruling on whether Ultra Petroleum Corp.

In Short

The Situation: Courts have disagreed over whether a make-whole premium triggered by a borrower's bankruptcy filing must be disallowed as unmatured interest. They have also disputed whether the "solvent-debtor exception" requiring the payment of postpetition interest to unimpaired unsecured creditors of a solvent debtor survived the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, courts have split on what rate of postpetition interest unimpaired unsecured creditors of a solvent debtor are entitled to receive.

In Short

The Situation: Bankruptcy courts have split on what rate of post-petition interest unimpaired creditors of a solvent debtor are entitled to receive. Bankruptcy courts have variously ruled that such creditors were entitled to the contractual rate of interest, interest at the federal judgment rate (about the rate on a one-year Treasury bill) as of the bankruptcy petition date, or an equitable rate. Another possibility is that no interest is payable at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has denied certiorari to petitioners alleging that Aaroma Holdings LLC is liable for personal injury claims stemming from the use of diacetyl by Emoral Inc., which declared bankruptcy in 2011 after Aaroma bought its assets in 2010. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings LLC, No. 14-71 (U.S., cert. denied November 3, 2014). The petitioners had argued that freeing Aaroma from liability would create a loophole for companies looking to avoid tort liability by encouraging them to sell assets before filing for bankruptcy.

In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014).

A Florida-based import-export company has filed for Chapter 7 protection in bankruptcy court, listing more than $204 million in liabilities from litigation over its role in the import from China of powdered milk contaminated with melamine. In re Exim Brickell, LLC, No. 13-28502 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., S.D. Fla., filed August 3, 2013). Exim Brickell, LLC declared $300 in office furniture as its only asset.

A federal court in West Virginia has ruled that the U.S. government may proceed with a Clean Air Act (CAA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enforcement action, even though defendant and its subsidiaries have filed for bankruptcy. United States v. RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, No. 12-19 (N.D. W. Va. 7/9/12).

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed decisions of the bankruptcy court and a federal district court that the purchaser of a bankrupt company’s assets cannot recover the costs of environmental remediation from an escrow account established as part of the purchase agreement.In re Evans Indus. Inc., No. 10-30387 (5th Cir. 6/21/11) (unpublished).

A bankruptcy court in Delaware has ruled that a debtor’s CERCLA claims are “non-core” claims that fall outside the administration of the estate in bankruptcy. NEC Holdings Corp. v. Linde LLC, No. 10-11890 (Bankr. D. Del.