In a recent contested matter in the historic cases, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al. (the “Debtors”), Case No.

The Senate Judiciary Committee in February approved Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons to head the Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts for the 113th Congress. This gives Coons oversight of the nation’s bankruptcy court system, as well as court administration and management, judicial rules and procedures, the creation of new courts and judgeships, and legal reform and liability issues.

Official committees of unsecured creditors (Committees) serve a vital role in protecting the rights of the general unsecured creditors during a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. 

On February 13, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a stipulation between LightSquared and, among others, its lenders to extend until July 15, 2013 LightSquared’s exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. That right was due to expire on January 31, 2013, and then was extended until the court ruled on LightSquared’s motion to extend that date.

• On January 22, 2013, following a 10-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Verizon that its former subsidiary, Idearc, Inc., was not insolvent on November 17, 2006, the day Verizon spun it off to become a separate entity. The plaintiff – the litigation trustee of the Idearc bankruptcy estate – brought this case claiming that Verizon spun Idearc off to bury its unprofitable Yellow Pages business unit and thereby take the losses of that unit off Verizon’s books.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that it had subject matter jurisdiction over a bankruptcy trustee’s adversary proceeding against the bankrupt entity’s insurer because the policy and policy proceeds were part of the policyholder’s bankruptcy estate.  EMS Financial Services, LLC. v. Federal Ins. Co., 2013 WL 64755 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.  Jan. 4, 2013).

Lest you thought you had heard the end of the Stern v. Marshall debate, two recent circuit court decisions remind us that Stern is alive and influential. In October, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority where it discharged certain fraudulent debts and awarded damages. In early December, the Ninth Circuit performed a similar constitutional analysis where the bankruptcy court decided a fraudulent transfer action against a noncreditor of the bankruptcy estate.

Applying California law, a California appellate court has held, in an unpublished opinion, that a judgment for reimbursement against an insured law firm was properly amended to name the sole equity partner of that law firm in light of his “pervasive” involvement in the underlying litigation and coverage litigation and his direction of such litigation in light of the fact that he knew the law firm was dissolved and had no assets.  Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. L.M. Ross Law Group LLP, 2012 WL 6555545 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2012). 

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has concluded that it should exercise jurisdiction under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the availability of coverage for a written demand and has held that the related coverage action should not be stayed in favor of potential future underlying litigation between the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the insureds because the outcome of the coverage litigation would not be dependent on resolution of disputed facts in such a future action.  Progressiv

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Texas law, has held that a settlement agreement resolving coverage litigation released the insurer’s obligation for defense costs for certain claims tendered for coverage under a subsequent policy.  Nat’l Heritage Found., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 5331570 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2012).