Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit decided In re EDM Corp.,[1] affirming that a creditor’s priority in collateral may be sacrificed if the debtor’s exact legal name is not exclusively used in the financing statement.

Perhaps prompted by revelations that one or more Connecticut-based insurers failed to notify individuals or report known data security incidents or breaches until weeks, or even months, after the data had been lost or stolen, the state's Insurance Commissioner has issued stringent new reporting obligations applicable to all entities regulated by the Connecticut Department of Insurance (CDI), including, for example, insurers, agents, brokers, adjusters, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider networks, discount health plans and certain consultants and utilization review companie

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the avoidance of nearly $2 million in postpetition payments made by debtor Delco Oil, Inc. (the "Debtor") to its petroleum supplier Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC ("Marathon").[1] The Eleventh Circuit held that funds received by Marathon from the Debtor constituted cash collateral that the Debtor had spent without the permission of either its secured lender, CapitalSource Finance ("CapitalSource"), or the bankruptcy court and, therefore, could be avoided under sections 549(a) and 363(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

There is growing recognition that the directors of an insolvent corporation owe a duty of care to the corporation’s creditors. Although this duty is not a fiduciary duty, the directors, in determining whether the board is acting with a view to the best interests of the corporation, may need to consider the interests of, inter alia, shareholders, employees, suppliers, creditors, consumers, governments and other stakeholders. Until recently, it was believed that the U.S. and U.K.

The long-awaited amendments to Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act (CCAA) came into force on September 18, 2009.

We sent to you earlier this week an Alert on "Chrysler Bankruptcy Filing and Preliminary Impact on Suppliers." As we promised, below is an update based upon our review of the case and observations at the hearings.

Essential Supplier Motion

The Court approved treatment of essential suppliers on a temporary basis. Here is a summary of the Interim Order:

Chrysler's bankruptcy filing, which occurred on April 30, has generated considerable activity already. Baker Hostetler has been monitoring closely the Chrysler activity for our supplier clients. We attended the hearing on the first day filings, which were generally ministerial in nature. The court approved joint administration, maintenance of cash management/business forms, enforcement of automatic stay, payment of wages, and honoring of all warranties.

During the present downturn in the U.S. economy, opportunities exist for investors in global distressed asset markets. Purchasers and sellers involved in these markets should be aware of the various mechanisms that are available to transfer assets of distressed companies. Historically, asset sales under s. 363 of the Bankruptcy Code1 have proven to be cheaper and faster than purchasing distressed assets through a Chapter 11 reorganization. Recent cases have shown that s.

The Sixth Circuit recently held that section 2-702(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which permits good faith purchasers to defeat a valid right to reclaim, does not allow a secured creditor to defeat that right.[1] The Sixth Circuit found that the security interest held by a DIP lender could not be used to defeat the right of a reclaiming creditor under the UCC or pre-BAPCPA section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. This decision may impact the way bankruptcy courts consider reclamation claims under revised section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.