The question of what happens to an international arbitration when a party files for bankruptcy in the United States is arising with increasing frequency. In the United States, the public policy interests that underlie both bankruptcy and arbitration legislation sometimes clash on critical points. The federal courts have developed competing approaches to addressing these issues. This fractured caselaw introduces uncertainty at the intersection of arbitration and bankruptcy.

US Bankruptcy Code

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

A recent defeat by a student-loan creditor could turn out to be a victory for the industry overall.

On March 23, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided an important case concerning a student-loan creditor’s motion to void a bankruptcy court’s judgment.1 The creditor brought this motion after initiating collection efforts and in response to the debtor’s request to cease and desist those efforts.

The Federal Trade Commission has had a full mailbox recently. It received a request to investigate caffeine-infused malt beverages and a request for a new privacy law. And the FTC sent a cautionary letter to a magazine addressing privacy issues in a consumer bankruptcy.

The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently clarified the applicable requirements for post-petition severance payments to a debtor’s former officers. In the case of In re: Forum Health, et al.1, the debtor sought authorization from the Court to make a severance payment in the amount of $18,126.00 to its former Chief Executive Officer. The Trustee objected, asserting that the debtor’s motion was not based on a program that was generally applicable to all full-time employees as required by 11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(2)(A).

SMITH v. SIPI, LLC (July 27, 2010)

In a decision filed on July 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court decision upholding a bankruptcy court order granting summary judgment to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (American Home) in connection with a repurchase transaction entered into in 2007 under which American Home sold certain certificates to Bear Stearns International Ltd. (Bear Stearns) for $19,534,000 and agreed to re-purchase the certificates at a later date for $19,636,879.07. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 2676383 (3d Cir.

On July 13, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in a landmark decision, that a plan sponsor which had the right to unilaterally terminate retiree benefits outside of bankruptcy could not exercise that same right during a bankruptcy proceeding. The case, IUE-CWA v. Visteon Corp. (In re Visteon Corp.), marks the first time that a Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a bankrupt employer in its attempt to unilaterally terminate non-vested retiree welfare benefits.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has held that policy proceeds were not part of the insured entity’s bankruptcy estate because previous entity claims were dismissed with prejudice, it was highly speculative that the bankruptcy trustee would approve indemnification of directors and officers and the policy’s priority of payment provision provided that entity coverage was only available after payment of proceeds for direct coverage to insured persons. In re Downey Fin. Corp., 428 B.R. 595 (D. Del. Bankr. May 7, 2010).

In this memorandum opinion, the Court of Chancery considered a motion to dismiss claims brought on behalf of Insilco Technologies, Inc. (“Insilco”) by the plaintiff, a bankruptcy court appointed Creditor Trustee. Among other claims, plaintiff brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Insilco’s controlling stockholder, a group of affiliated funds (the “DLJ Funds”) allegedly dominated and controlled by DLJ, Inc. and DLJ Merchant Banking, Inc. (“DLJMB”) (collectively, “DLJ”), and a group of DLJ-affiliated directors who comprised a majority of Insilco’s board.