Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit decided In re EDM Corp.,[1] affirming that a creditor’s priority in collateral may be sacrificed if the debtor’s exact legal name is not exclusively used in the financing statement.

Perhaps prompted by revelations that one or more Connecticut-based insurers failed to notify individuals or report known data security incidents or breaches until weeks, or even months, after the data had been lost or stolen, the state's Insurance Commissioner has issued stringent new reporting obligations applicable to all entities regulated by the Connecticut Department of Insurance (CDI), including, for example, insurers, agents, brokers, adjusters, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider networks, discount health plans and certain consultants and utilization review companie

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

St. Mary's Hospital is the first hospital in New Jersey to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy and did so in less than one year. Since 2007, six hospitals have filed for bankruptcy, five of which have either closed or sold their assets in bankruptcy.

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the avoidance of nearly $2 million in postpetition payments made by debtor Delco Oil, Inc. (the "Debtor") to its petroleum supplier Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC ("Marathon").[1] The Eleventh Circuit held that funds received by Marathon from the Debtor constituted cash collateral that the Debtor had spent without the permission of either its secured lender, CapitalSource Finance ("CapitalSource"), or the bankruptcy court and, therefore, could be avoided under sections 549(a) and 363(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

As widely expected, GM and all of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on June 1, 2009. Besides General Motors Corporation, the other three associated debtors are: Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc., Saturn, LLC and Saturn Distribution Corporation. Please note that GMAC is not included in these bankruptcy filings.

Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez presided over hearings May 20, 2009, in this mega bankruptcy case. There were 21 matters on the agenda, as well as an emergency motion, that were heard or adjourned to a later date, in approximately two and a half hours of hearings (click here for a link to the audio file provided by the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York; it may take a moment to load before playing).

Our first update1 discussed various initial proceedings in the Chrysler bankruptcy cases. This update provides certain information on the Order Approving Bidding Procedures for the Sale of Substantially all of the Debtors’ Assets, which was entered by the court on May 7, 2009, and the Interim Order Approving a DIP Credit Facility and Authorizing the Debtors to Obtain Post-Petition Financing, which was entered by the court on May 4, 2009. The final DIP Financing and Sale hearings are scheduled for May 20, 2009, and May 27, 2009, respectively.

As widely reported, on April 30, 2009, (the Petition Date), Chrysler LLC and its 24 domestic and indirect subsidiaries (the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court).

We sent to you earlier this week an Alert on "Chrysler Bankruptcy Filing and Preliminary Impact on Suppliers." As we promised, below is an update based upon our review of the case and observations at the hearings.

Essential Supplier Motion

The Court approved treatment of essential suppliers on a temporary basis. Here is a summary of the Interim Order: