In a ruling that has been described as “very important” and the “first decision of its kind,” bankruptcy judge Shelley C. Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on April 1, 2011, in In re Innkeepers USA Trust, 2011 WL 1206173 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

ReGen Capital I, Inc. v. UAL Corporation, et al., (In the Matter of UAL Corporation, et al.), 635 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2011).

CASE SNAPSHOT

In Myers v. Toojay's Mgmt. Corp., the Eleventh Circuit held that a federal Bankruptcy Code provision prohibiting termination of and discrimination against employees for filing bankruptcy does not cover hiring decisions. Plaintiff was offered a job as a restaurant manager conditioned upon a background check. The employer rescinded the job offer allegedly because plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy.

This is the fifty-second in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing issues arising in the aftermath of the global Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”).

Introduction

Most employers know that it is unlawful to terminate the employment of or to discriminate against an individual who has previously filed bankruptcy because of his or her status as a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. A recent Federal Court of Appeals decision, however, highlights the distinction between denying employment to an individual based on prior bankruptcy filing and terminating the individual’s employment because of it.

On June 7th, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment dismissing Chapter 13 debtors' claims against Wells Fargo, which holds debtors' mortgages. Debtors alleged that Wells Fargo violated the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions by recording in its internal records the fees it incurred to file its proof of claim. The Eleventh Circuit held that Wells Fargo did not violate the automatic stay because it had not collected or attempt to collect those fees. Similarly, a claim based on Wells Fargo's failure to disclose the fees was not yet ripe for action.

Last month, the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") in the Viashow bankruptcy filed avoidance actions against several creditors of the bankruptcy estate.  One avoidance action in particular seeks to recover damages allegedly sustained by Viashow due to breaches of fiduciary duties by its officers and directors (the "D&O Action").  In addition to Viashow's officers and directors, the D&O Action seeks damages against defendants who allegedly "aided and abetted" the officers and directors in their breach.  

Delaware Court Addresses Important Revlon Duties in Cash/Stock Mergers

In re Ebadi, No. 10-73702, 2011 WL 1257211 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. March 30, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT