Rejection of a contract in bankruptcy may not always accomplish a debtor’s goal to shed ongoing contractual obligations and liabilities, especially when dealing with employee benefit plans. On October 13, 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals highlighted this issue in its opinion in Evans v. Sterling Chemicals, Inc.1 regarding the treatment of a pre-bankruptcy asset purchase agreement which contained a provision addressing the debtor-acquiror’s post-closing ERISA retiree benefit plan obligations to its new employees resulting from the transaction.
As we previously report here, Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“AFG”), the holding company for the bond insurer, Ambac Assurance Corp. (“AAC”), filed for bankruptcy in November 2010 after it was unable to raise additional capital or come to terms with its debt holders.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn of the Southern District of New York has approved a stipulation between bankrupt bookseller Borders Group Inc. ("Borders") and email marketer Next Jump Inc. ("Next Jump") that will require Next Jump, a former marketing partner of Borders, to stop emailing Borders' customers and remove Borders' trademarks from its website and email blasts.
In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors, the Court of Appeal has upheld a first instance decision that section 426 of the Insolvency Act (IA) can be used to enforce a foreign monetary judgment in insolvency proceedings. However, the Court acknowledged that where there exists a statutory framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments, in this case enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (the 1933 Act), then enforcement under s.426 of the IA must follow the requirements of the 1933 Act.
Bankruptcy Judge Michael Lynn of the Northern District of Texas recently issued a noteworthy opinion in In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. that addresses two important Chapter 11 confirmation issues. Judge Lynn determined that a plan that artificially impaired a class of claims in order to meet the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) had not been proposed in bad faith and did not violate the requirements of section 1129(a). In his ruling, Judge Lynn also applied the Supreme Court’s cram-down “interest”1 rate teachings in Till v.
The case concerned credit default swaps entered into between Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., and various parties, and the rights of the parties in respect of collateral held by a trustee.
As many creditors have unfortunately discovered, the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to sue the creditor for certain payments – called preferences – that the creditor received from the debtor prior to the bankruptcy.
On June 28, 2011, in In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa,1 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Enron’s redemption of its commercial paper prior to maturity fell within the definition of a “settlement payment” and was protected from avoidance under § 546(e)’s safe harbor provision in Title 11 of the United States Code.2
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in the Stern v.
The Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Stern v. Marshall (Stern), Case No. 10-179, 2011 WL 2472792 (U.S. June 23, 2011), invalidating the relatively common assumption that so called “core” bankruptcy proceedings are all matters in which the bankruptcy courts are permitted to enter final judgment, and undoubtedly fostering heightened jurisdictional scrutiny in the future.