Pursuant to § 1104 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the court may appoint a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. A qualified examiner, with a clearly defined mission, can drastically affect the outcome of the bankruptcy case and directly impact the return to creditors. The difference between a successful financial restructure or liquidation and an investigation yielding little value to the creditors often depends on the approach taken by the examiner and his professionals.

In November of 2010, the trustee for the Circuit City Stores, Inc., liquidating trust filed more than 500 adversary proceedings against creditors seeking the recovery of alleged preferential payments. The extent of the trustee's success in recovering these payments will impact the overall distribution to creditors. Creditors in bankruptcy cases should be aware that preference litigation allows a trustee or debtor-in-possession to recover payments received by a creditor during the period immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order this week upholding the aggressively unfavorable treatment of a senior secured creditor under the reorganization plan (the “Plan”) of DBSD North America, f/k/a ICO North America (“DBSD”).

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. The right examiner, with a clearly defined mission, will have a major influence on the bankruptcy process. The difference between a successful financial restructuring or liquidation-resulting in substantial recoveries for the key constituencies-and a time-consuming (and asset-consuming) meltdown, can depend on the approach of the examiner and the examiner's support team.

Some legal commentators have lamented the extent to which lenders have been able to use debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements to gain control over an entire Chapter 11 case.

In addition to the cases discussed in "Considerations in Terminating an Insolvent Franchisee" in the June 24, 2010, Franchise Alert (available at www.wileyrein.com/insolvent_franchisee), two recently reported decisions have looked at franchisor attempts to gain relief from bankruptcy stays in order to enforce post-termination provisions.

Bankruptcy lawyers who are regularly involved in distressed m&a deals have been wondering for the past few months about the potential fallout from Philadelphia Newspapers.

REDMOND v. FIFTH THIRD BANK (October 20, 2010)

COSTELLO v. GRUNDON (October 18, 2010)

IN RE: RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORP. (October 1, 2010)