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).

The highly publicized announcement by Nortel Networks Corporation (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “Nortel”) of its intention to sell certain of its businesses has provided an opportunity for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to settle the state of the law in Ontario (and, hopefully, across Canada) on the sale of all or substantially all of an entity’s assets within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings.

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).

In the last several months, a number of major mass media companies have filed for chapter 11 relief, including Ion Media Networks, Sun-Times Media Group, Tribune Company, Young Broadcasting and NV Broadcasting. With the economy still struggling to recover, and asset values continuing to decline, commentators speculate that even more mass media related bankruptcies are on the horizon. Certain aspects of a mass media bankruptcy present unique challenges for the various stakeholders due to the special regulatory requirements involved.

There are signs of hope in the aviation marketplace, with the slow return of financing and the apparent bottoming-out of aircraft values. Buying opportunities abound-but so do risks; and no situation is more frustrating than finding yourself "infected" by someone else's bankruptcy. Even if the market has reached its nadir, there are many companies that are simply not going to survive much longer in the market as it has been redefined.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has affirmed a bankruptcy court's ruling that defense costs advanced by an insurer to a debtor under an Interim Fee Advancement and Non-Waiver Agreement (the Interim Agreement) were not held in trust and, therefore, constituted property of the debtor's estate. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. (In re Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y.), No. 09-CV-4052, 2009 WL 1684022 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2009).

Debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP financing”), which is new short-term financing obtained by an insolvent company after the commencement of an insolvency proceeding, is a recurring theme for two primary reasons. First, insolvent companies are generally desperate for an immediate infusion of cash to sustain operations. Second, creditors will usually provide such financing only on a super-priority basis, jumping ahead of existing secured creditors of the insolvent company.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an insured vs. insured exclusion bars coverage for a suit by a debtor-in-possession against former directors and officers of the company. Biltmore Assocs. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-16417, 2009 WL 1976071 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009). The court rejected the argument that the debtor-in-possession was a different legal entity from the pre-bankruptcy company insured under the policy.

In an unpublished summary order applying New York law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a district court's judgment finding that many of the factual allegations asserted in a complaint against the directors and officers of the bankrupt policyholder were excluded by a prior litigation exclusion, even though some of the excluded losses accrued during time periods not at issue in the prior litigation. Pereira v. Gulf Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1262954 (2d Cir. May 6, 2009).

Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.