In an October 19, 2010 opinion arising out of the Scotia Pacific bankruptcy cases, the Fifth Circuit ruled that reorganized Scotia and its affiliate Pacific Lumber Company were obliged – nearly 2½ years after Scotia’s reorganization plan was consummated – to pay Scotia’s former secured lenders approximately $30 million on account of a mistake made by the bankruptcy judge in calculating the amount owed to the secured lenders for the use of their collateral during the bankruptcy cases.

The concurring opinion in a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals case1 suggests that trademark licensees may be able to retain their rights in bankruptcy cases, even if licensors reject the license agreements. The majority did not consider whether the licensee could retain its rights. Instead, the majority held that the trademark license was not an executory contract; therefore, it could not be rejected under the Bankruptcy Code. The majority opinion applies narrowly to circumstances involving perpetual, exclusive, and royalty-free trademark licenses.

On September 30, 2010, in In re American Safety Razor, LLC, et al, Case No 10-12351 (MFW), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the debtors’ proposed bid procedures for the sale of the business were unfair and unreasonable. The bid procedures, among other things, provided too much discretion to the debtors in the auction process.

363 Sales in General

On October 5, 2010, Judge Bruce Black of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a ruling in the River Road Hotel Partner LLC, et. al. (the “Debtors”) bankruptcy cases denying the Debtors’ bid procedures motion incident to plan confirmation. The bid procedures motion, among other things, sought the denial of secured creditor’s right to credit bid.

Once a company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (to sell its assets, reorganize or liquidate), Bankruptcy Code § 1114 sets forth a detailed procedure for the employer to follow to modify or terminate certain retiree benefits. Among other things, § 1114 imposes on the employer the burden of showing that the elimination or modification of benefits is necessary to permit reorganization.

The FDIC is currently responding to one of the worst financial crises in the history of the nation’s banking system. Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, expects that 2010 “will be the high water mark for the banking crisis.”1 Just over the last two years, 268 banks have failed in the United States, which is nearly ten times the number of failed banks during the prior eight-year period.2

Bankruptcy-related developments during the first half of this year have sent shock waves
through the secured lending, derivative, and distressed debt trading communities. Several
notable decisions may significantly affect the way these entities operate and calculate risk,
and result in changes to standard documentation. Until recently, a proposed overhaul of
Bankruptcy Rule 2019 threatened to discourage distressed debt investors, including hedge
funds, from participating in bankruptcy proceedings as part of an ad hoc committee or group.

On May 17, the FDIC issued a proposed rule that would require certain insured depository institutions to submit a contingent resolution plan outlining how they could be separated from their parent structures and wound down in an orderly and timely manner. Institutions with assets greater than $10 billion that are subsidiaries of a holding company with total assets of more than $100 billion would be subject to this proposal.

On April 23, the FDIC published additional Q&As on the Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions (“Policy Statement”) issued in September 2009. The Q&As clarify that there is no requirement that investors must have held their ownership for a specific amount of time.

The FDIC voted to extend the safe harbor provided under 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 until September 30, 2010, from the FDIC’s ability, as conservator or receiver, to recover assets securitized or participated out by an insured depository institution. When the safe harbor was initially adopted in 2000, the FDIC provided important protections for securitizations and participations by confirming that, in the event of a bank failure, the FDIC would not try to reclaim loans transferred into such transactions so long as an accounting sale had occurred.