Given the commonality in today’s marketplace of complex corporate capital structures that employ multiple layers of secured debt, existing and potential creditors need to be increasingly aware of the rights and limitations provided for in subordination or intercreditor agreements. These agreements are often entered into between the existing lender or debt holder and a new lender. They often restrict the actions of subordinated lenders upon the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy protection, including denying their right to vote on the debtor’s plan of reorganization.

In a recent decision¹, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found the standard for sealing under § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code was not met and declined to seal a settlement agreement, despite requests from the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") and the counterparties to the settlement agreement to do so. Confidentiality was an essential condition of the settlement. In addition, the United States trustee supported the motion to seal, arguing that the standard for sealing had been met.

As electronic discovery has become more prevalent and voluminous, national standards for the preservation of evidence have evolved dramatically in the past decade. Through a proliferation of electronic discovery orders involving discovery compliance, courts have addressed when the duty to preserve evidence arises, signifying a party’s duty to issue a “litigation hold.” Courts have not answered, however, whether a party can withhold documents generated before issuing a litigation hold on the basis of work product protection.

On the somewhat unusual occasions when your judgment debtor has assets, the question turns to how do I maximize my judgment and collect every penny legitimately owed to my client?  Here are some thoughts:

Congress enacted the ordinary course of business defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to protect recurring, customary transactions in order to encourage the continuation of business with and the extension of credit to a financially distressed customer.

Bankruptcy Code Section 503(b)(9) litigations have sometimes yield "shocking results". There is no pun intended here. This article discusses a recent case where the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana waded into the spine tingling issue of whether electricity is a good that is subject to Section 503(b)(9) administrative priority status.

Large businesses and organizations that self-insure their legally mandated insurance requirements often use “fronting” policies in which the policyholder must reimburse insurers for all losses and expenses paid on the policyholder’s behalf. These policyholders must furnish substantial collateral to secure repayment, typically, enough to pay many years’ worth of actual and anticipated claims. This can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, and typically exacerbates cash flow and balance sheet problems for policyholders under financial stress.

Recent Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit opinions highlight the dispute over whether or not the Bankruptcy Code authorizes allowance of claims for post-petition legal fees incurred by unsecured creditors. Specifically, while not all Circuits agree, in the wake of the 2007 United States Supreme Court decision Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of North America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 549 U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently issued two opinions examining standing issues in bankruptcy proceedings. This article examines how those cases clarify bankruptcy practice and procedures in the Sixth Circuit related to: (1) obtaining standing to pursue causes of action on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, and (2) the standing of potential defendants to oppose orders granting authority to pursue causes of action against them.