• On December 20, 2011, the South Carolina Public Service Commission (SC PSC) issued a scheduling order for AT&T South Carolina’s complaint against Halo Wireless. AT&T alleges that Halo, which filed for bankruptcy protection after AT&T initiated this action and similar complaints in several other states, was sending AT&T landline-originated traffic but refused to pay terminating access charges. AT&T also alleges that Halo has been manipulating call signaling information to hide the traffic’s true origin and to make it appear as wireless-originated traffic.

An English rugby club (an unincorporated association of its members) engaged the services of Barnes Webster & Sons (BWS), a construction company. The club’s treasurer signed the contract, which was witnessed by Davies, the club’s president. The club agreed to pay BWS a fixed price plus additional amounts for certain variations in the work, should they arise. The variations were required, but the club did not pay the £147,000 bill for them that BWS presented. BWS made a demand on Davies personally, which he moved to set aside.

The District Court in Manhattan seems to have put the nail in the coffin of triangular set-off in insolvency – that is, the ability of affiliates to set off their claims against an insolvent debtor: In re Lehman Brothers Inc. (SDNY, 4 October 2011).

Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon, owners of the New York Mets baseball team, invested in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Irving Picard, the trustee appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act to liquidate the business of Madoff and Madoff Securities, sought to recover over $1 billion from Katz and Wilpon on the grounds that they had made money from Madoff through fraud, constructive fraud and preferential transfers in violation of federal bankruptcy law and New York debtor-creditor law.

• On October 12, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York brought TerreStar Network’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding one step closer to conclusion by approving the debtor’s $98 million settlement with two separate creditor groups over a certain purchase money credit agreement.

The House Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony on the benefits and pitfalls of proposed legislation that would change bankruptcy venue rules by imposing limitations on where corporations may file for bankruptcy protection. The hearing came in the wake of a statement by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in which he asked how Enron had been able to file its bankruptcy case in Manhattan considering that Enron was based in, and had substantially all of its assets and operations in, Texas.

In 2002 a European subsidiary of Lehman Brothers created a complicated synthetic debt structure called Dante, which was intended to provide credit insurance for another subsidiary, LBSF, against credit events affecting certain reference entities, the obligations of which formed the reference portfolio. A special purpose vehicle issued notes to investors, the proceeds of which were used to purchase collateral which vested in a trust. The issuer entered into a swap with LBSF under which LBSF received the income on the collateral and paid the issuer the amount of interest due to noteholders.

• On September 16, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice amended its complaint to enjoin the AT&T/T-Mobile merger to include the states of New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Washington, and Ohio as additional plaintiffs. United States v. AT&T Inc., No. 11-cv-1560 (D.D.C.).
• On September 19, 2011, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Texas largely denied the motion to dismiss of Verizon Communications, and related entities, against claims that they defrauded investors and creditors via spinoff company Idearc.

Employers are constrained by dozens of rules and regulations limiting their hiring criteria. In today’s economy, one question that often arises is whether employers may refuse to hire bankrupt job applicants. Surprisingly, the answer for private employers may be yes.

On April 6, 2011, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in the priority disputes between the lessors and aviation authorities resulting from the Skyservice receivership. The Court, in interpreting and applying the decisions in Canada 3000 and Zoom Airlines, may have raised the bar for lessors to defeat the seizure and detention rights of the aviation authorities in Canada.