Increasingly, struggling businesses are opting to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a vehicle to sell substantially all of their assets. This is because Chapter 11 debtors can sell assets under uniquely buyer-friendly conditions. The last several years have revealed a clear trend in favor of quick liquidation by sale motion. As businesses continue to falter and fail due to the continuing financial crisis, it is likely that liquidations by Chapter 11 sale motion will continue to gain popularity.

Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which was added to the Code pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Ace of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), creates an administrative claim in favor of pre-petition suppliers of goods under certain circumstances. From the time of its enactment, courts and practitioners have sought clarity regarding the correct interpretation of key elements of this section of the Code. This article examines the concept of the date of "receipt" of goods for purposes of §503(b)(9).

The chronology in many successful Chapter 11 cases is for the debtor to confirm its plan of reorganization, and then turn its attention to recovering preferential transfers of money or property made in the 90 days (or 1 year for insiders of the debtor) before the bankruptcy filing. This article explores the duty to provide information in the plan about possible preference actions, and the level of disclosure necessary to preserve them.

Can the owners of a company retain their equity interests in a Chapter 11 reorganization plan? The answer to this question is often critical in determining whether a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is a desirable option for the company's owners. If the company is unable to pay its creditors in full, then the absolute priority rule prohibits owners from retaining their interests under a reorganization plan unless the owners contribute new value to the business that is both substantial and essential to the company's reorganization efforts.

On January 7, 2013, the Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a dispute concerning the debtors’ use of cash collateral was not subject to arbitration, notwithstanding a broad arbitration clause in the parties’ underlying agreement, because the decision to allow a debtor to use cash collateral constituted a “core” issue and was a fundamental aspect of the bankruptcy process. In re Hostess Brands, Inc., No. 12-22052 (RDD), 2013 WL 82914 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013).

Background

On January 30, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held that, pursuant to section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code, a municipal debtor is not required to seek court approval to enter into settlements with and make settlement payments to prepetition creditors during the pendency of its chapter 9 case. The decision demonstrates the broad scope of section 904 and the free reign that a municipal debtor enjoys under that section during the pendency of its chapter 9 case. In re City of Stockton, Cal., Case No. 12-32118 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.

On December 4, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added to the growing body of case law delineating the extent of bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction in the wake the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall.

On Nov. 28, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. issued a groundbreaking decision under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides the mechanics for U.S. bankruptcy courts to deal with cross-border insolvency proceedings. Although deference to judgments of foreign courts is the norm under Chapter 15, in this instance the Fifth Circuit refused to enforce a court-approved Mexican plan of reorganization on the ground that it contained non-consensual non-debtor releases of noteholders’ claims against the debtor’s non-debtor subsidiaries.

In a ruling predicted by the Restructuring Review Blog last month, Judge Meredith A. Jury of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California rejected arguments by CalPERS that the Bankruptcy Court should lift the automatic stay and require San Bernardino to pay pension obligations owed to the pension fund. In re City of San Bernardino, California, Case No. 12‑blk‑28006‑MJ , (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012) (Docket No. 299).

August 31, 2012: Second Circuit Adopts Abuse of Discretion Standard of Review for Equitable Mootness Decisions