Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code offers a strong defense for holders of bonds, notes and other securities to preference and fraudulent transfer actions brought in bankruptcy proceedings. Essentially, any payment made to settle or complete a securities transaction, including repurchases and redemptions of bonds, notes and debentures, is protected from avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code. For many years, however, this powerful defense was rarely used. When the defense was raised, it was usually in the context of protecting payments made in leveraged buy-outs.

Can a secured creditor decide not to participate in a bankruptcy proceeding and thereby avoid any impact the bankruptcy may have on its lien? According to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in S. White Transp., Inc. v. Acceptance Loan Co., 2013 WL 3983343 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013), the answer appears to be that at least in the Fifth Circuit, the secured creditor can avoid the impact a bankruptcy plan has on its lien by simply declining to participate in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Over the last two decades, many companies faced with excessive asbestos-related liabilities have successfully emerged from bankruptcy with the help of section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which channels all asbestos-related liabilities of the reorganized company to a newly formed personal injury trust. The injunctive relief codified in section 524(g) is modeled on the channeling injunction first crafted in the bankruptcy case of Johns-Manville Corporation, once the world’s largest producer of asbestos-containing products.

In drafting the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to nonresidential real property, Congress intended commercial landlords to be “entitled to significant safeguards.”1 Examples of the protections afforded to commercial landlords include requiring a debtor to remain current in its payment of post-petition rent;2 allowing landlords to drawdown on a letter of credit without prior bankruptcy court approval;3 permitting landlords to setoff pre-petition unpaid rent against a security deposit and/or lease rejection damages;4 recognizing that a tenant’s possessory rights in nonresident

On August 8, 2013, the Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) Restructuring Agreement closed, following the denial of the last relevant appeal of the trial court’s Order of Liquidation and Approval of the Restructuring Agreement in May 2013.

Summertime is arguably the best time of the year. Warm weather. Long-awaited family vacations. Extended daylight. And unique to this summer, as of July 1, 2013, in most states, we have substantial amendments (the 2010 Amendments) to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to digest (maybe even under an umbrella on the beach). The 2010 Amendments are intended to clarify existing law, especially with respect to how certain types of debtors are named in financing statements. As of July 3, 2013, 44 states and the District of Columbia had enacted the 2010 Amendments.

Under French law, the divestiture of an unprofitable business can create specific legal risks resulting from the status of the sold business. International companies should anticipate a number of issues when selling a French loss-making subsidiary, including, but not limited to, issues surrounding the sale price, the risk of post-closing liabilities under bankruptcy proceedings and the risk of post-closing liabilities relating to employee claims.

Sale Price

Last month’s decision out of the Delaware District Court in Woolery, et al. v.

The long ELNY saga continues, at least for the time being, with two recent developments.

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, equating a covenant not to sue under a patent with a license, has concluded that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot unilaterally reject the covenant as an executory contract.  In re Spansion, Case Nos. 11-3323, -3324 (3rd Cir., Dec. 21, 2012) (Scirica, J.).

Spansion and Apple settled a patent dispute at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding flash memory products, with Spansion agreeing to dismiss its case and to refrain from filing related actions.  In pertinent part, the agreement stated: