One of the most powerful tools a chapter 11 debtor has is the ability to assume or reject executory contracts under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In bankruptcy parlance, when a debtor “rejects” an executory contract, it is considered as though the debtor breached the agreement as of the date it filed for bankruptcy and sheds the debtor’s obligation to perform under the rejected contract.  The non-debtor party receives a claim for damages arising from the debtor’s breach; however, in many cases, it will be worth only pennies on the dollar.  The converse of rejection is

In a recent decision authored by Chief Judge Easterbrook, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, Docket No. 11-3920 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012)) held that the licensee of a trademark does not necessarily lose the right to use the licensed marks when a debtor-licensor rejects the underlying license agreement in its bankruptcy case.  In so holding, the Court rejected a contrary decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.

In 2009, the owners and management of The Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the nation's largest daily circulation newspapers, proposed a bankruptcy plan that attacked secured creditors' rights to bid their loans. When the District Court and the Third Circuit both approved the tactic, the plan gained national attention.

Baker Hostetler serves as court-appointed counsel to Irving H. Picard, SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC (“BLMIS”). In January of 2011, the SIPA Trustee obtained approval from the United States Bankruptcy Court for a $5 billion settlement for BLMIS customers with allowed claims. At the same time, the Bankruptcy Court also issued a permanent injunction with respect to claims that were duplicative or derivative of the SIPA Trustee’s claims. After an appeal, the District Court affirmed the settlement and the injunction in March of 2012.

On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the chapter 11 cases of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, and RadLAX Gateway Deck, LLC (the “RadLAX Cases”)¹ held by a vote of 8-0² that a chapter 11 plan cannot be confirmed if the plan (i) is rejected by a class of secured claims, (ii) provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of liens securing such claims, and (iii) deprives the holders of such claims of the right to credit bid at the sale of collateral.  

Preliminary Remarks

On March 1, 2012, the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG) came into effect. The main aim of the ESUG is to improve the prospects of an early and successful restructuring of distressed companies, to involve creditors in the selection process of the (preliminary) insolvency administrator and to improve the reliability and predictability of particular insolvency plan proceedings. The main changes of the ESUG to the current German insolvency law (InsO) comprise:  

Bankruptcy cases can be expensive affairs not only for the debtor, but also for creditors trying to obtain payment on their claims. A Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida recently approved a provision in a chapter 11 plan allowing for certain unsecured creditors to be reimbursed for their legal fees if their participation in the case helped maximize recoveries for other creditors, even though the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly allow for this kind of reimbursement.

On 29 February 2012, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment concerning the treatment of client money in the long-running administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”).

Oftentimes in bankruptcy, when one entity files for bankruptcy relief, the subsidiaries or affiliates also file. Sometimes these entities are "substantively consolidated" for bankruptcy purposes, thus combining the assets and liabilities into a single pool and attributing them to a single entity. Substantive consolidation has been permitted when, for example, debtors have abused corporate formalities or creditors have treated the separate entities as a single economic unit and their affairs were hopelessly entangled.

In December 2010, the Trustee obtained a $5 billion settlement for BLMIS customers with allowed claims.  Plaintiffs in putative class actions challenged the settlement and the Bankruptcy Court’s decision holding that the class actions violated the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code and were otherwise enjoined.  Yesterday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the settlement and the Bankruptcy Court’s decision finding that the class actions were duplicative or derivative of the Trustee’s action and thus were void ab initio un