Years ago, second lien lenders adhered to the truism about children -- they were seen but not heard. As our children have grown more vocal in recent years, so too have second lien lenders. A spate of recent bankruptcy cases demonstrate that second lien lenders have been both seen and heard at many critical junctures in the chapter 11 timeline -- at the sale of the debtor’s assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code,1 in seeking the appointment of an examiner,2 when voting on a chapter 11 plan,3 and in connection with the confirmation hearing.4

The rapid evolution of a robust secondary market for claims against the three largest failed Icelandic banks provides a powerful example of the prompt adaptation of an existing secondary-market legal framework -- originally developed in the US and Europe -- to a complex and novel bankruptcy regime and trading environment.

In CML V, LLC v Bax, the Court of Chancery held that a creditor of JetDirect Aviation Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("JetDirect"), did not have derivative standing to assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board of managers of the insolvent JetDirect. The creditors would have had standing if JetDirect were a Delaware corporation, but the Court found that the Delaware LLC Act does not allow an LLC’s creditors to bring derivative claims when a Delaware LLC is insolvent (or at any other time).

In the jargon of the secondary bank loan market, loans beneficially owned by participation may be "elevated" to direct assignments once requisite administrative agent and/or borrower consent is obtained. Such "elevations" customarily have been viewed as straightforward transactions -- when completed, the participant simply stands in the shoes of the grantor and becomes the lender of record of the loan on the books of the administrative agent.

Straining under a debt burden in excess of $1 billion, TerreStar Networks filed a petition for Chapter 11 protection with a New York bankruptcy court on Tuesday. Known formerly as Motient Corp., TerreStar is in the midst of deploying a hybrid terrestrial/mobile satellite network that would serve rural and other hard-to-reach areas in the U.S.

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, the legal system continues to sort out rights and obligations of financial market participants. This is especially true for participants in the over-the-counter derivatives markets.

The tremendous growth of that largely unregulated market has been accompanied by the development of sophisticated contractual frameworks and specific bankruptcy legislation expressly intended to reduce uncertainty around the amount and type of claims that could ultimately be asserted by market participants following bankruptcy of a derivative counterparty.

T he recent surge in activity in the claims trading market in the wake of Lehman Brothers and other high-profile bankruptcies has created a backlog of open trades and heightened price volatility. This is a perilous combination. The lack of standardized trading documentation and uniform trading conventions, as well as the dramatic influx of new counterparties into the claims market, are factors that have contributed to longer settlement timeframes and increased uncertainty in the market.

In a recent decision, SEC v Byers,1 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that district courts possess the authority and discretion to bar the filing of involuntary bankruptcy petitions without the district court’s permission.

On Monday, the Vermont Public Safety Board (VPSB) threw up a roadblock against Fairpoint Communications’ quest to emerge from bankruptcy with the issuance of a 96- page order that rejects the company’s plan of reorganization. Saddled with debt accruing from its $2.3 billion purchase of landline phone assets from Verizon Communications in 2008, Fairpoint—a regional provider of landline telephone services in the states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine—filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October of 2009.

In our Distressed Investor Alert dated December 23, 2009, we wrote that Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, had returned to the public eye in light of the controversial revisions to Rule 2019 (“Revised Rule 2019”)1 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the "Rules Committee").