A New York bankruptcy court recently rejected a debtor’s challenge to a consensual state court judgment (“Judgment”) in favor of mortgagee, General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”), that had accelerated a debt and obtained a prepetition foreclosure judgment against debtor, 410 East 92nd Street (the “Hotel”), in the amount of approximately $74 million. In re: Madison 92nd St. Associates LLC, 472 B.R. 189 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).

In re KB Toys, Inc., 470 B.R. 331 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In In re Interstate Bakeries Corporation, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. 2012) (IBC), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a perpetual, royalty-free trademark license was an executory contract and therefore subject to assumption or rejection by a bankruptcy debtor. This decision is at odds with a recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Exide Technologies, 607 F.3d 957 (3d Cir. 2010), which found that such a license under similar circumstances was not an executory contract and could thus not be assumed or rejected by the bankruptcy debtor.

On October 10, 2012, Vertis Holdings, Inc. ("Vertis"), and various related entities, filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  This is Vertis' third time in bankruptcy in recent years.  As stated in the company's Declaration in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions (the "Decl."), Vertis filed a prepackaged bankruptcy in Delaware in July of 2008.  Vertis filed its first bankruptcy in order to merge with American Color Graphics and restructure some of the company's debt.   Decl.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee ruled in August that an LLC’s creditor could not pierce the LLC’s veil to assert its claim against the LLC’s sole member. In a twist, the LLC’s member, not the LLC, was the debtor in bankruptcy. In re Steffner, No. 11-51315, 2012 WL 3563978 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn., Aug. 17, 2012).

In re Coastal Broadcasting Systems, Inc., Case No. 11-10596 (Bankr. D. N.J. July 6, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

At confirmation, the bankruptcy court considered whether the assignment of voting rights in an intercreditor agreement was enforceable. The bankruptcy court noted that various courts had reached differing conclusions, but ultimately found that the voting assignment in the intercreditor agreement before it was enforceable.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This article is Part Seven in a seven-part series on how to structure sales and what to do when your customer fails to pay.

On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a requirements contract for electricity is a forward contract for purposes of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, settlement payments made under the contract are exempt from avoidance as preferences. Claude Lightfoot v.

The Delaware District Court recently affirmed an appeal of an order denying millions of dollars in compensation to bankruptcy professionals due to certain provisions in a final debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing order. In re Barnes Bay Development Ltd. (“Barnes Bay”) was filed under Chapter 11 on March 17, 2011, case no 11-10792. On September 23, 2011, the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (“PACA”)¹ is deservedly renowned for its provisions creating a statutory trust on sold perishable commodities, and the products and revenues thereof. See 7 U.S.C. §499e. The PACA statutory trust can have dramatic consequences in the cases of bankrupt produce buyers; produce sellers often are paid in full, ahead of secured creditors holding liens on all inventory and accounts receivable. That is a story often told.