While 90 percent of life may be just showing up, showing up late may be just as bad as never showing up at all. Just ask two creditors who were told for the second time they cannot file claims in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case because they filed their claims too late.

A recent New York bankruptcy case holds that the Bankruptcy Code's limitations on using avoidance actions to undo securities transactions did not apply where the underlying transactions did not implicate the public securities market. A debtor or bankruptcy trustee has the power and obligation to recover transfers made by the debtor, prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case, that were either actually or constructively fraudulent. There are, however, certain enumerated limitations to this power.

Island One, Inc. to Emerge from Bankruptcy

A California federal district court granted temporary injunctive relief, requiring the purchaser of a bankrupt hospital to temporarily recognize and bargain with the union that represented nurses employed by the hospital’s seller, pending the outcome of a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) hearing.

Published in The Deal, January 5, 2011

The recent decision in Bank of America, NA v. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et. al.), No. 08-13555, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01753, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3867 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010) has shone a 10,000-watt spotlight onto the scope of common law set-off in New York.

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.

On October 8, 2010, the FDIC approved a Proposed Rule that would implement certain provisions of its authority granted by Congress in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title II”) to act as receiver for covered financial companies (failing financial companies that pose significant risks to the financial stability of the United States) when a Bankruptcy Code proceeding is found to be inappropriate. Prior to the enactment of the Dodd‑Frank Act on July 21, 2010, no unified statutory scheme for the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies existed.

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

The judge presiding over the bankruptcy proceeding of the operator of a Web site and magazine aimed at gay teens has approved a settlement allowing the destruction of personal information of users rather than a sale to creditors as part of the bankruptcy estate. The court approved the settlement after the Federal Trade Commission raised objections to the sale, citing the Web site sign-up confirmation page, which stated that "[w]e never give your info to anybody," and a similar statement directed to subscribers of an associated print magazine.

In re Visteon Corp., No. 10-1944-cv, 2010 WL 2735715 (3d Cir. July 13, 2010), the Third Circuit held that Visteon Corporation (Visteon) could not terminate unvested retiree health and life insurance benefits during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without seeking court approval pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1114, 11 U.S.C. § 1114. The Third Circuit’s decision departs from the rulings of many other federal courts, and is in tension, if not outright conflict, with the Second Circuit’s decision in LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 945 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.