An issue that is often overlooked, but should be considered in the context of large project transactions, is the potential insolvency of contractors and subcontractors. A bankruptcy proceeding involving a key contractor can cause headaches and costly delays, particularly if title to goods or work completed has not been transferred to a project owner. Accordingly, anticipating these types of issues and accounting for them in negotiating construction and supply contracts is an important step in any large project transaction.

In a pro-debtor opinion released on February 26, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a debtor may “artificial impair” claims in a class to obtain an impaired and accepting class of claims as required by section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code. Western Real Estate Equities, L.L.C. v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. (In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P.), No. 12-10271, 2013 WL 690497 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013).

Statutory Background to the Artificial Impairment Issue

A recent decision in the protracted litigation by lenders of Extended Stay to recover under guaranties executed by owners of Extended Stay highlights the need for clear and unambiguous drafting in intercreditor agreements.

Most people think of an oil and gas mineral “lease” as, so named, a lease. However, this common thinking is not necessarily accurate, both with respect to state and federal law and in particular in the bankruptcy courts in the United States.

Over recent years in this economic climate, it has been increasingly common for distressed companies to be sold in an effort to rescue the entity. On first blush, this seems a relatively simple exercise although care is required to ensure that no unexpected tax charges arise, especially if there is restructuring of the debt. The taxation rules governing the end of business life are varied and complex and the sooner that thought is given to taxation in respect of the insolvent company the better this will be for the seller, the remaining group and for any buyer.

Despite having more than its fair share of failed banks, Florida has not been a hotbed of D&O litigation. On November 9th, the FDIC filed only its second lawsuit against former directors of a failed banking institution. The defendants here are former directors of Century Bank, FSB (Sarasota, FL), which was placed into receivership in mid-November 2009.  A copy of the FDIC’s complaint is available here.

In an important opinion released on November 27, 2012, Judge Shelley C. Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York transferred the Patriot Coal Corporation (Patriot Coal) chapter 11 bankruptcy cases from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Missouri. This decision comes as a surprise to many observers who had expected, based on prior failed attempts to change venue in Enron and other large cases filed in the Southern District of New York, that Judge Chapman would defer to the Debtor’s choice of venue.

After failed court-ordered mediation, Hostess Brands, Inc. – makers of iconic bakery goods that include Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Ho Hos and Wonder Bread – received permission from a bankruptcy court to cease operations and liquidate last week.

So, what does the impending liquidation of Hostess have to do with employee benefits? Well, one of the largest issues facing Hostess has been crippling union pension contributions, which have been reported as high as $1 billion.

The IRS and Treasury recently proposed regulations that, if finalized, would permit an employer in bankruptcy to amend its defined benefit plan to eliminate certain optional forms of benefit, including lump sum payments.

Trademark licensees won a victory on July 9, 2012, when the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC. The opinion holds that the rights of a trademark licensee do not automatically terminate when its license agreement is rejected by a trademark owner in bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the significance of that victory will only become clarified if and when other courts, including possibly the Supreme Court, and Congress address the issues raised in Sunbeam.