My how time flies in protracted bankruptcy litigation. More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. After an initial appeal, a four-day trial on remand, and another appeal, last week the U.S.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed¹ the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re KB Toys, Inc.,² and held that a claim that is subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in the hands of the original claimant is similarly disallowable when that claim is held by a subsequent transferee because the section is applicable to “claims” rather than “claimants.” This holding is in contrast to a prior decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in

Almost every year, changes are made to the set of rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed -- the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The changes address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Transparency Bill. The legislation would, if enacted into law, require bankruptcy trusts to file quarterly reports with bankruptcy courts disclosing the names, asbestos-related exposure history, and basis of the victim’s claims for each claimant. These reports would be made available on the courts’ public dockets. Confidential medical records or social security information would not be disclosed.

In an adversary proceeding filed in the American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Delaware bankruptcy court affirmed that triangular setoffs are not allowed under the Bankruptcy Code and cannot be modified by contract or under the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provision. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 11-51851 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 8, 2013). Two contracts were at issue – a swap agreement between a bank and American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.

Cash Is King. An army may march on its stomach, but for companies, it's liquidity that keeps the business going. For many companies, typical sources of liquidity, beyond cash flow from sales or other revenue, are (1) financing from banks or other secured lenders, (2) credit from vendors that can reduce immediate liquidity needs, and (3) when needed, loans from owners, investors, or other insiders.

In Burcam Capital II, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, No. 13-00063-8 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. Oct. 1, 2013), an adversary proceeding filed in In re: Burcam Capital II, LLC, No. 12-04729-8, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the court held that the Debtor Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that its lender and the special servicer of the loan breached their duty to act in good faith and to deal fairly.

A recent New York court decision has cleared the way for lenders to seek recovery against non-recourse carve-out, or “bad boy,” guarantors during a pending mortgage foreclosure action if a borrower files for bankruptcy. In so doing, the court answered a question that, surprisingly, was thus far apparently unanswered in a reported decision in New York: whether New York’s “one action rule” under RPAPL § 1301 bars a lender from obtaining a money judgment against a “bad boy” guarantor for the debt if a mortgage borrower files for bankruptcy while a foreclosure action is underway.

In a recent decision ^[1] arising from the In re Residential Capital LLC, et al.

In Virginia Broadband, LLC (Bankr. W.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2013), the unsecured creditors committee moved to dismiss an LLC’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case alleging a flaw in the authorization of the LLC’s bankruptcy filing caused by an authorizing member’s individual bankruptcy filing. Specifically, the committee alleged that when the authorizing member filed his individual bankruptcy case, Virginia law divested him of his non-economic (voting) rights in the LLC.