Recently, a number of high profile cases have emerged involving the application of material adverse change ("MAC") provisions, primarily in the context of leveraged buyouts.2 This week, the application of MAC clauses to a financing commitment arose in the context of the Solutia Inc. ("Solutia") bankruptcy proceeding. On February 6, 2008, Solutia filed an adversary proceeding against certain lenders (the "Lenders")3 seeking to enforce a commitment to provide $2 billion in exit financing.

By Order, dated January 14, 2008, United States Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, granted the motion (the "Motion") filed by a group of creditors seeking transfer of venue of the Dunmore Homes, Inc. (the "Debtor") bankruptcy case from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. A number of other creditors and the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee joined in the Motion.

Following a recent ruling in the Delphi Corporation bankruptcy case approving cure notices and cure claims procedures, purchasers of unsecured trade claims originating out of executory contracts or unexpired leases should take special precautions to protect their rights or risk impairment or loss of such claims to the extent they become cure claims.

In 1991, a decision of the Delaware Chancery Court helped popularize the term "zone of insolvency.”[1] In the intervening 16 years, numerous courts and commentators have cited this decision as standing for the proposition that the directors of a Delaware corporation that is either insolvent or in the zone of insolvency owe fiduciary duties to the creditors, as well as to the shareholders, of the corporation.

In Diamond Z Trailer, Inc. v. JZ, LLC (In re JZ, LLC), No. 07-1011 (9th Cir. B.A.P., June 18, 2007), the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed a Bankruptcy Court decision holding that an unscheduled executory contract rides through the bankruptcy if not assumed or rejected during the bankruptcy. Further, a debtor has standing to sue for a breach of that executory contract when the breach occurred after the closure of the bankruptcy case.

In the case of Sherman v. Harbin (In re Harbin), the Ninth Circuit decided that in determining the feasibility of a plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(a)(11), a court must evaluate the possible impact of pending litigation, whether at the trial level or on appeal.

In Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 127 S. Ct. 199 (2007) ("Travelers"), the United States Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that had made pre-petition contractual provisions awarding attorneys' fees to the prevailing party unenforceable in bankruptcy to the extent the parties litigated issues peculiar to bankruptcy law. The Ninth Circuit opinion, Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank (In re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

On March 7, 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that "in the Chapter 11 context, whether a pre-plan settlement's distribution plan complies with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme will be the most important factor for a Bankruptcy Court to Consider in approving a settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019." In re Iridium Operating LLC, No. 05-2236 (2d Cir. March 7, 2007)