The Delaware District Court recently affirmed an appeal of an order denying millions of dollars in compensation to bankruptcy professionals due to certain provisions in a final debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing order. In re Barnes Bay Development Ltd. (“Barnes Bay”) was filed under Chapter 11 on March 17, 2011, case no 11-10792. On September 23, 2011, the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan.

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 a recent contested matter in the case Home Valley Bancorp., Inc., Case No.

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 24, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) dismissed with prejudice a complaint brought by AT&T California, Inc. against Fones4All Corp. in 2006. AT&T sought to recover alleged overcharges paid to Fones4All for termination of intraLATA toll traffic. Following an evidentiary hearing, the CPUC issued D.07-07-013, granting the relief AT&T requested in its complaint, or approximately $2.6 million, plus interest.

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.

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

In a recent case, RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. Education Loan Trust IV et al., 2011 WL 6152282 (Del. Ch. Dec. 6, 2011), a holder of notes issued under an indenture claimed that the issuer caused the trust to pay excess and unauthorized fees that allegedly reduced the amount of interest payments to the noteholder.