The US Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts says default rates must be justified as a reasonable measure of damages at the time of the making of the loan and that a floating default rate that can exceed 5% will not be allowed as part of a creditors claim in the borrower's bankruptcy.    The loan was made in 2006 with a contract rate equal to prime at a time when the prime rate was below 13 percent.

Under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) section 436, unless a defined benefit pension plan sponsored by a debtor in bankruptcy is fully funded, the plan may not make “prohibited payments” (i.e., lump sum payments or payments in any other form that exceed the monthly amount under a single life annuity). Moreover, the anti-cutback rule in Code section 411(d)(6) prohibits a plan from being amended to eliminate an optional form of benefit.

The intricacies of pursuing environmental claims against financially distressed parties

In a prolonged financial downturn, it is an even more difficult burden for many companies to shoulder their own environmental remediation requirements.Pollock’s article examines the steps to consider if a co-liable potentially responsible party (PRP) is either showing signs of economic distress or has already filed in bankruptcy.  

Large law firm failures typically produce lengthy and litigious bankruptcy cases. A frustrated lawyer in one such case succinctly described the essential problem: “the assets walk, talk and, worst of all, have their own counsel.” To the inherent tensions and creditor demands of any large chapter 11 case are added  the raw pain, similar to divorce, that many partners feel at the downfall of an institutio

A federal court recently held that two investment funds are not jointly and severally liable for a bankrupt portfolio company’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan disagreeing with a 2007 opinion by the Appeals Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”). The Massachusetts U.S. District Court ruled there was no liability because the investment funds are not “trades or businesses” for purposes of ERISA’s joint and several liability rules.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Texas law, has held that a settlement agreement resolving coverage litigation released the insurer’s obligation for defense costs for certain claims tendered for coverage under a subsequent policy.  Nat’l Heritage Found., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 5331570 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2012).

One of the most powerful tools a chapter 11 debtor has is the ability to assume or reject executory contracts under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In bankruptcy parlance, when a debtor “rejects” an executory contract, it is considered as though the debtor breached the agreement as of the date it filed for bankruptcy and sheds the debtor’s obligation to perform under the rejected contract.  The non-debtor party receives a claim for damages arising from the debtor’s breach; however, in many cases, it will be worth only pennies on the dollar.  The converse of rejection is

Under Section 436 of the Internal Revenue Code, a single employer defined benefit plan sponsored by a company in bankruptcy cannot pay any “prohibited payments” (e.g., lump sums, Social Security level income annuity payments) if the plan is less than 100% funded. In June 2012, the IRS issued proposed regulations permitting such a defined benefit plan to be amended to eliminate prohibited payment forms without violating the anti-cutback requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 411(d)(6) if certain conditions are satisfied.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has issued a decision with significant implications for licensees of trademarks whose licensors become debtors in bankruptcy. In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, the Court considered whether rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy deprives the licensee of the right to use the licensed mark.¹ Disagreeing with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.

A decision issued earlier this year by a Florida bankruptcy court¹ provides comfort to those who accept payment from a debtor-in-possession in return for goods or services. The court held that to invoke the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court in a lawsuit to recover an alleged impermissible post-petition transfer by a debtor, the plaintiff must establish that the debtor's estate was diminished as a result of the transfer to the defendant.