In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York distinguished excusable neglect in filing a claim before the expiration of a clear bar date. In a written opinion issued on May 20, 2010 in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., et. al, Case No. 08-13555 (JMP), Judge Peck denied seven motions for leave to file late claims finding none satisfied the Second Circuit’s strict standard to find excusable neglect.

The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.

In a recent opinion issued in the case In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-4266 (3rd Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured lenders do not have an absolute right to credit bid on all asset sales under section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. This opinion could have a profound effect on the manner in which debtors seek approval of a sale pursuant to a plan of reorganization and, potentially, a chilling effect on the willingness of lenders to extend credit in the future.

On 25 January 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to an action brought in that court by two Lehman Brothers entities (the Lehman entities) against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (the US Decision).

Although 2010 is still young, the bankruptcy courts have been busy interpreting Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure as it applies to ad hoc groups of creditors in bankruptcy cases. A ruling issued on February 4, 2010, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LL, Case No. 09- 11204 (Bankr. E.D.Pa.) found Rule 2019 does not apply to ad hoc groups. The score is now tied at three to three.

PETER J. SOLOMON COMPANY, L.P., v. ONEIDA, LTD., CASE NO. 09-CIV-2229, 2010 WL 234827 (S.D.N.Y. JAN. 22, 2010)

The term “stalking horse” originally referred to a horse or type of screen a hunter used to conceal his position from intended prey. Today the term takes a new meaning altogether thanks to its application in the bankruptcy context. A modern day “stalking horse” is an interested buyer of a debtor’s assets who is offered incentives for being the first to announce its intent. As the initial bidder, the stalking horse sets the minimum purchase price and other terms of the transaction.

It has taken 12 months, but new legislative provisions are now in place to deal with the problems for representatives of incapacitated entities arising from Logan J's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Development Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1,886.

The new provisions go beyond merely addressing the outcome of PM Developments. They also introduce new obligations for representatives of incapacitated entities as well as some concessions and protections.

There is something for everyone in the suitably named Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009–including potential recoveries for unsecured creditors of a debtor reorganizing or liquidating pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Background

The Supreme Court declines to review a circuit court decision in Oneida Ltd., which held that a debtor cannot discharge in bankruptcy, as a prepetition claim, premiums it owes to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in connection with the termination of a pension plan.

Introduction