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.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that significantly restricts the scope of setoff rights for energy traders and other participants in derivatives and forward commodity markets. Traditionally, bankruptcy law has required mutuality between the debtor and a creditor as a prerequisite for the exercise of setoff rights by the creditor.

A hotel property derives much of its value from its operator and brand. When a hotel owner is in distress with respect to its loan obligations, the operator also plays a critical role in the resolution of the workout process between the owner and the lender. The rights and obligations of the operator contained in its agreements with the owner and the lender affect any workout decision that the parties may make.

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a foreign representative of a foreign insolvency proceeding to seek a bankruptcy court’s assistance in an ancillary proceeding upon recognition of the foreign proceeding. Upon recognition, Chapter 15 empowers a bankruptcy court to grant broad relief to a foreign representative to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of its creditors in the United States.

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.

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.

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.

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

Two decisions (one only weeks ago) have held that the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 encompasses “informal committees” of bondholders and that such committees must comply with the extensive disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.1 In a recent decision, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court came out the other way, ruling that such a committee was not a “committee representing more than one creditor” and, consequently, is not subject to Rule 2019.2 In so doing, Judge Sontchi considered but declined to follow the two decisions addressing the same issue: