On March 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision that could significantly impact the rights of secured creditors to credit bid in connection with Chapter 11 asset sales under a plan of reorganization.

Credit bidding of debt held by a secured creditor at a sale of collateral under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code has become commonplace.1 Does a secured creditor have that same ability in a sale under a chapter 11 plan? Most thought so, but according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not always.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) and its affiliated U.S. chapter 11 debtors (the “Debtors”) filed a joint plan with the Bankruptcy Court on March 15, the last day on which the Debtors who filed petitions on September 15, 2008, had the exclusive right to file a plan. As a result of the filing, the Debtors have an additional 60 days during which no other party may file a plan.

A recent court ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland clarifies the process for determining how much money investors may be entitled to receive in connection with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) proceeding involving the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The new ruling specifically related to whether investors could receive amounts equaling the totals appearing on their last account statements. The judge sided with the SIPC-appointed trustee, Irving Picard, who argued that investors could claim only the amount they first invested with Madoff (minus any withdrawals).

Japanese mobile phone service operator Willcom has filed for bankruptcy protection after failing to reach agreement with creditors on the restructuring of the company’s US $2.3 billion debt load. Filed late last week under Japan’s corporate rehabilitation law, the petition ranks as the largest bankruptcy to affect a Japanese telecom carrier. It is expected to wipe out the investment of the Carlyle Group, the U.S.-based private equity firm that, in 2004, paid US $330 million for a 60% controlling stake in what was then the mobile phone unit of KDDI Corp.

Beneficiaries of a Ponzi scheme who were subsequently found liable to cheated investors under state securities laws could not discharge this liability under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a stern warning to professional services providers regarding “tail fees,” establishing a presumption of unreasonableness against contract terms requiring fees not attached to tangible, identifiable and material benefits to the debtor’s estate.

Overcoming months of delay, regional local exchange carrier Fairpoint Communications filed a reorganization plan with a New York bankruptcy court that would reduce the carrier’s debt load by two-thirds and give secured creditors an ownership stake of 92% in the post-bankruptcy entity. At the same time, Fairpoint reached settlements with the states of New Hampshire and Vermont that address commitments to service quality and to the provision of broadband services in those states.

On January 25, Judge Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) in a case examining a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction and concerning the effect of event of default provisions on the payment priorities of LBSF as swap counterparty under certain swap agreements and the holders of certain credit-linked synthetic portfolio notes. The payment waterfalls (Priority Provisions) of most CDO transactions give priority to swap counterparties over noteholders.

In a matter of first impression arising in the largest corporate bankruptcy in history, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York invalidated a common contractual provision shifting payment priority upon the default of a swap counterparty (“Flip Clause”) in a credit-linked debt structure.1