In re Visteon Corp., No. 10-1944-cv, 2010 WL 2735715 (3d Cir. July 13, 2010), the Third Circuit held that Visteon Corporation (Visteon) could not terminate unvested retiree health and life insurance benefits during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without seeking court approval pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1114, 11 U.S.C. § 1114. The Third Circuit’s decision departs from the rulings of many other federal courts, and is in tension, if not outright conflict, with the Second Circuit’s decision in LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 945 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.
I. Introduction
On Tuesday, the FDIC held the first in a series of proposed roundtable discussions on the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which is intended to bring transparency to the rulemaking process. Government officials, industry executives, academics and investors were invited to participate in the discussion.
It is no surprise that there are risks inherent in doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy, including, of course, the risk that the debtor may not have the money to pay for goods sold to it on credit. Businesses can manage those risks by, for example, shortening trade credit terms, obtaining the debtor’s agreement to pay on delivery or in advance for product, or obtaining a deposit or letter of credit as security. But, once a debtor has paid for goods or services it actually received, most vendors would probably assume that the transaction cannot be challenged.
The FDIC is currently responding to one of the worst financial crises in the history of the nation’s banking system. Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, expects that 2010 “will be the high water mark for the banking crisis.”1 Just over the last two years, 268 banks have failed in the United States, which is nearly ten times the number of failed banks during the prior eight-year period.2
Introduction
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.