Last week the Supreme Court exercised its option to do nothing about a Seventh Circuit decision allowing the federal government to cram a $150 million remediation obligation onto a chapter 11 successor corporation – all because the feds chose to proceed under RCRA (the federal hazardous waste statute) rather than CERCLA (the Superfund cleanup statute). Smart tactics by the feds.

In re Leslie Controls, Inc., No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2010), involved a very common scenario. A company in financial difficulty sought to negotiate a consensual restructuring with an ad hoc committee and, in that context, disclosed various confidential analyses. In this particular case, the company had asbestos exposure, the ad hoc committee represented asbestos plaintiffs, and the shared information included a memorandum and numerous e-mails concerning potential insurance recoveries under various bankruptcy scenarios.

On July 13, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in a landmark decision, that a plan sponsor which had the right to unilaterally terminate retiree benefits outside of bankruptcy could not exercise that same right during a bankruptcy proceeding. The case, IUE-CWA v. Visteon Corp. (In re Visteon Corp.), marks the first time that a Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a bankrupt employer in its attempt to unilaterally terminate non-vested retiree welfare benefits.

Intercreditor agreements between first and second lien lenders are created all the time and are therefore not usually glitzy topics for client updates. But the recent intercreditor dispute between Donald Trump and corporate raider Carl Icahn over control of Trump's Atlantic City casinos had all the drama and glamour of the gambling dens and billionaires involved, including two competing but confirmable plans and senior and junior creditors vying for ownership of a gaming empire and its attendant upside.

On May 20, 2010 the Senate passed the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (the "Senate Bill") 59-39, only hours after the cloture vote ended debate on the bill. The House passed its version—the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (the "House Bill")—in December 2009. The primary stated focus of the Senate and House Bills is to prevent the failure of the "too big to fail" institutions and to avoid government (taxpayer) bailouts in the future.

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.

A temporary Scheme was introduced in March 2009

The purpose of the temporary Scheme is to ensure that former employees of insolvent businesses receive a reasonable amount of compensation promptly, where they are owed money by their former employers.  

In a White Paper published on 03 December 2009 the States proposed to introduce a permanent Scheme. The deadline for respondents to submit their views was Friday 05 February 2010

In the matter of a Representation by Computer Patent Annuities Holdings Limited and in the matter of Part 18A of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2010]JRC021

Introduction

This case, heard by the Royal Court in Jersey, involved the approval of a scheme of arrangement pursuant to Article 125 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the "Companies Law"), together with the confirmation of a reduction of share capital.

Background

In the matter of Centurion Management Services Limited and Article 155 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2009]JRC227

Introduction

This judgment of the Royal Court in Jersey illustrates circumstances in which the court has been prepared to exercise its jurisdiction to order that a company be wound up on the grounds that it is just and equitable so to do.