Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code,1 the U.S. enacted equivalent of the UNCITRAL Model Law On Cross-Border Insolvencies, has received a fair amount of use by distressed shipping companies since it was enacted in 2005. In 2007, we wrote in these pages that Chapter 15 might provide a welcome U.S. safe harbor. (See “Shipping, Finance, and Insolvencies: A Homeport in the United States?” Mainbrace, June 2007, No. 2). More recently, in 2009, we published “Shipping, Finance, and Insolvencies: The Black Swan Comes Home to Roost” (Mainbrace, January 2009, No.
Is a bankrupt pledgor legally bound to fulfill its promise to pledge a gift; or will a nonprofit have a successful claim against a pledgor if there is a subsequent failure to make payment because of a bankruptcy filing? A district court in Arizona recently held that St. Joseph's, a nonprofit hospital, did not have an enforceable claim in Bashas' Inc.'s bankruptcy for Bashas' $50,000 charitable pledge because of Bashas' bankruptcy. In re Bashas' Inc., 2012 WL 5289501 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2012).
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.
Recently, a Delaware bankruptcy court denied a purchaser of claims its recovery because of judgments against the original holders of the claims from whom the claims were purchased. The case,In re KB Toys, Inc., et al., 470 B.R. 331 (Bankr. D. Del.
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.
In a recent decision, Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 US App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. May 15, 2012), the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court decision which had forcefully quashed a bankruptcy court decision to avoid, as a fraudulent transfer, a $400 million settlement and loan repayment by a parent company to a group of lenders (the “Transeastern lenders”).
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.