In a Bracewell & Giuliani client alert dated December 7, 2009 (which can be found here), we reported on a decision ("WaMu I") from Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court that required a group of bondholders of Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WMI") to comply fully with the disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

We have been sending Client Updates since 2007 concerning the decision of the Australian High (Supreme) Court in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic. Specifically, the High Court held that the damages claims of shareholders of insolvent companies for fraud and misrepresentation should be treated pari passu with the claims of all other unsecured creditors, rather than being treated as subordinated to unsecured claims as is the case in the U.S.

In In re Kohls, 2007 LEXIS 76 (Bankr NDWVa 2007), the debtor filed this adversary proceeding against the Bank to cancel indebtedness and recover damages related to a $34,864 loan that the Bank made to the Debtor on the grounds that the loan was unconscionable at the time it was executed in violation of W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121.

Many bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the general tenet that an obligation secured only by a mortgage on the Debtor’s principal residence is immune from modification or avoidance by the Debtor. Sections 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code protect residential mortgages from being “stripped-down” to the value of the subject real estate or subjecting the terms of the underlying obligation to modification.

What should be the remedy when a bankruptcy court holds that a security interest is avoidable as a preferential transfer, but the value of the security interest is not readily ascertainable? The Ninth Circuit recently addressed this issue in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re: Taylors), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5793 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court held that, since the value of the security interest was not readily ascertainable, the only available remedy is for the bankruptcy court to return the security interest itself, not its value, to the bankruptcy estate.

Dubai's announcement on 25 November 2009 that it would seek a standstill (the "Standstill Announcement") on the debt of Dubai World, a Government of Dubai holding company, whose principal business activities include the master developers Nakheel and Limitless, port operator DP World, and investment house Istithmar, caused a considerable impact across world markets and widespread comment amongst the world media.

Following the Standstill Announcement a number of significant events and further announcements have taken place, principal amongst these have been:

In an Opinion issued on December 2, 2009 in the Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu") Chapter 11 case, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that Bankruptcy Rule 2019 clearly applies to "ad hoc committees," regardless of how they might try to disclaim collective action. As a result, the members of an informal group of WaMu bondholders must now provide detailed information concerning their holdings, including a history of when they bought and sold their bonds and the prices paid. Perhaps more importantly, the Opinion packs a second bombshell.

In the chapter 11 proceedings for ION Media Networks, a distressed fund (Cyrus) purchased second lien debt and then employed what the Court characterized as "aggressive bankruptcy litigation tactics as a means to gain negotiating leverage." In a November 24, 2009 Memorandum Decision, Judge James Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York stopped Cyrus in its tracks, holding that the Intercreditor Agreement (ICA) between the first lien and second lien lenders would be enforced to deny Cyrus (i) the ability to assert that certain assets were outside of th

In U.S. v. Apex Oil, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled 3-0 that EPA’s cleanup injunction against the corporate successor to a chemical company was not discharged in Chapter 11 because the injunction does not create a right to payment and, consequently, is not a ‘debt’ under the Bankruptcy Code.

Only twice has the U.S. Supreme Court spoken directly to environmental issues in bankruptcy – until now. Today the Supreme Court ruled that certain claims can in fact be barred by a bankruptcy court's channeling injunction. The case is particularly important in light of the major corporate bankruptcies now under way in the industrial sector, where environmental costs can drive the success or failure of a restructuring.