Courts are now being asked to examine transactions which were completed during the recent exuberant period. Despite the fact that the transactions in question may have been market standard at the time, because those transactions are being scrutinized during an unprecedented economic crisis, it appears that a disproportionate amount of finger pointing – and economic loss – is being directed at secured creditors. The result is a seeming erosion of secured creditors’ rights for the benefit of unsecured creditors.

The dispute over the disposition of customer records held by the "Clear" airport traveler program casts a spotlight once again on the handling of consumer personal data when a business falls on hard times. In such circumstances, the desire of the debtor to preserve or maximize the value of its business assets can conflict with legitimate privacy interests of individuals who were customers of the business.

Filing a successful proof of claim is the key to unlocking a creditor's right to recover against a debtor in bankruptcy. Only in limited circumstances may a creditor recover against the debtor's estate without properly filing a proof of claim. This article addresses the various stages of filing, attacking and defending a proof of claim.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer because a lawsuit against the insured actuarial services firm was a claim "arising out of the insolvency" of the insured's client and therefore was barred by the policy's insolvency exclusion. Zurich Global Corp. U.K. v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2009 WL 2827969 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2009).

United States Supreme Court

Washington, D.C.

November 3, 2009

The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) purported to eliminate the ability of chapter 11 debtors in possession to pay bonuses to management through Key Employee Retention Plans. However, in recognition of the fact that a real need often exists to incentivize key employees to remain with a reorganizing or liquidating business, bankruptcy courts have approved incentive plans providing for payments to insiders and other employees. Such plans must be carefully crafted to avoid the restrictions on retention bonuses post-BAPCPA.

A federal district court in Delaware, applying New York law, has affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion.Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2392882 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2009).

Credit agreements typically provide that any amendment permitting the release of “all or substantially all” of the collateral requires the unanimous consent of the lenders. Many market participants expect that this provision provides protection against the agent and other lenders from consenting to the sale of the collateral and releasing the corresponding liens without the consent of all lenders.

The recent steady drumbeat of Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings is producing an equally persistent corollary: creditors receiving new securities issued by the reorganizing debtor or a related party in full or partial satisfaction of the creditors’ claims. Some of these creditors-cum-investors never planned to receive securities. The paradigmatic example is a creditor that enters into a normal business transaction resulting in an obligation that the debtor company hasn’t yet satisfied when it files for reorganization.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, applying New York law, has held that an insured did not violate an insurance policy's cooperation clause when it agreed, without providing advance notice to the insurer, to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay with respect to certain personal injury actions filed against it. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Grace Indus., Inc., 2009 WL 2222369 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009).