Earlier this month, the Chapter 7 Trustee for the Rehrig International bankruptcy estate filed several preference actions against various defendants. As set forth in the complaints, the Trustee seeks to avoid and recover payments which he contends are preferential transfers, fraudulent conveyances and/or postpetition transfers. Rehrig filed for bankruptcy on September 5, 2008. Less than four months later, Rehrig’s Chapter 11 proceedings were converted to cases under chapter 7. Soon after the conversion to Chapter 7, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed George L.

After months of negotiations and conferences among key legislators, President Obama signed into law a final version of regulatory reform legislation on July 21, 2010. More than 2,000 pages long, the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (the Act) provides new legal guidelines for both “financial companies” and non-financial companies and instructs federal agencies to develop a myriad of regulations to enforce the concepts provided in the Act.

Introduction

On July 13, 2010, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously held that auto-parts supplier Visteon Corporation could not terminate health and life insurance benefits for approximately 2,100 retirees during its chapter 11 bankruptcy unless Visteon followed the specific requirements laid out in section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code, even if Visteon would have had the unilateral right to terminate these benefits outside bankruptcy.1 The Court found that a debtor may terminate any retiree benefits in bankruptcy only if,inter alia, the debt

Construction disputes often boil down to a single issue: “show me the money.” Experienced contractors, owners and financiers understand the risks that come with unfinished projects and unpaid work; best practices have long included tracking first visible work, last day of work, and other issues critical to perfecting and enforcing mechanic’s lien rights. But a bankruptcy or a potential bankruptcy of a project participant introduces a new set of challenges and risks to construction projects.

Suppose a retailer declares bankruptcy. Several of its leases are sold off to another retail chain, which then remodels the stores, stocks them with its own merchandise, and opens them under its own name. If this retailer hires some of the bankrupt company's employees, are those employees new hires under the FMLA, or might they have the right to take FMLA leave immediately, without waiting 12 months or working 1250 hours for the new company?

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on an issue of first impression inGreen Tree Servicing, LLC v. Brough, 930 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) that arbitration provisions in consumer loan agreements survive discharge in the borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding.

A company facing a rash of tort lawsuits may try to use a dormant subsidiary’s bankruptcy as a tool to limit its exposure. That’s what Pfizer tried to do, and a New York bankruptcy judge sent them packing. This case is a warning to corporate parents that courts will not allow them to manipulate the process to use the bankruptcies of subsidiaries to further their own agendas. If you’re a creditor you can use this case as ammunition in reorganization disputes to show bad faith. Read on for a quick summary of what happened in the Pfizer case, and what you can learn from it.  

Once a company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (to sell its assets, reorganize or liquidate), Bankruptcy Code § 1114 sets forth a detailed procedure for the employer to follow to modify or terminate certain retiree benefits. Among other things, § 1114 imposes on the employer the burden of showing that the elimination or modification of benefits is necessary to permit reorganization.

The issue of whether Section 362(a) operates as a stay of ITC Section 337 investigations arose in several ITC cases in the last two years. The first case, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-605, involved Spansion, Inc., a Delaware corporation that manufactures semiconductor chips outside the United States. Spansion was named as a Respondent in the case and contended that the ITC investigation should be stayed as to Spansion pursuant to the automatic stay provision of Section 362(a).