The following is a list of some recent larger US bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.

NOVELTY

Party and novelty goods company Oriental Trading Co., Inc. has filed for Chapter 11 protection with a prepackaged plan of reorganization.

OIL

A Maryland bankruptcy court has declared that Side A benefits under a D&O policy are not property of the bankrupt estate, with the result that two former executives who have been accused of making illegal payments and diverting funds from their former employer to start a new venture may be able to recoup certain defense costs. In re: TMST, Inc. f/k/a Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., et al., Docket No. 09-17787 (Bankr.D.Md. Aug. 17, 2010).

The Bankruptcy Code provides several protections for parties that have supplied goods or services to a debtor on credit prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy petition date.

In re Goody’s Family Clothing, Inc- F3d – 2010 WL 2671929 (3d Cir June 29, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

JELD-WEN, Inc v Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc), (3d Cir No 09-1563, June 2, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Exide Technologies, 607 F3d 957 (3rd Cir June 1, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Suppliers to chapter 11 debtors-in-possession should always ensure that they are not being paid from the debtor’s “cash collateral” without court approval. Marathon Petroleum Company supplied products to debtor Delco Oil in the ordinary course of its business during the bankruptcy case, but was forced to return all of the postpetition payments it received from Delco, pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code. Marathon was required to return these payments because they were deemed part of the cash collateral that was secured by Delco’s pre-petition creditor, CapitalSource Finance.

Longview Aluminum, LLC v Brandt (In re Longview Aluminum, LLC), 2010 WL 2635787 (ND Ill, June 28, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In this edition of the Landlord’s Corner, we review various cases that address the (i) rights of landlords to recover their property post-rejection, (ii) whether payments pursuant to a termination of lease agreement constitute preferential transfers and (iii) whether a lease could be retroactively rejected in the absence of a formal motion to reject.

IUE-CWA v Visteon Corporation, 2010 WL 2735715 (3rd Cir July 13, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT