Not too long ago we advised that it’s a good idea to check whether your plaintiffs were actually alive when they filed their suits.  We’d like to amend that to add that it’s also a good idea to check whether your plaintiffs were financially alive as well.  

Given the spate of bankruptcies filed over the last few years, including by large-scale tenants such as Borders, Linens 'n Things, and Circuit City, and the tenuous financial condition of big-box retailers such as Best Buy, it is important for both landlords and tenants to understand the benefits and limitations of bankruptcy protection as it relates to the status of a bankrupt tenant’s leasehold interest.

In somewhat related news, in two recent New York Supreme Court rulings, judges upheld the validity of “bad boy” guarantees that included as non-recourse exceptions or “bad boy” acts under the guarantee a voluntary bankruptcy filing by the borrower.

Generally, retirement plan benefits are excluded from a bankruptcy estate. However, if the retirement plan is not covered by Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a separate exemption from the bankruptcy estate must be found. Some retirement plans are not covered by Title I of ERISA because they do not cover employees, which, for this purpose, excludes the sole owner of a business and the owner’s spouse. These types of plans are commonly referred to as “Keogh” plans.

On March 15, 2012, the American Bar Association’s Electronic Discovery (ESI) in Bankruptcy Working Group (the “Working Group”) published an interim report addressing certain principles and suggested best practices for electronic discovery in bankruptcy cases (the “Interim Report”). The Working Group was formed to study and prepare guidelines or a “best practices” report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve ESI in bankruptcy cases.

On May 25, 2012, Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a motion to compel the production of certain documents under section 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In his decision, Judge Gropper also suggested that the broad discovery provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 may apply to chapter 15 discovery requests, but stopped short of making such a ruling.  In re Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Limited, Case No. 11-13171 (ALG), (Bankr. S.D.N.Y May 25, 2012).

The Delaware bankruptcy court in the KB Toys, Inc. cases recently held that a claims purchaser takes a claim subject to certain disabilities of the claim as held by the seller, regardless of whether the claim transfer is deemed a “sale” or an “assignment.” SeeIn re KB Toys, Inc., Case No. 04-10120 (KJC) (Bankr. Del. May 4, 2012). In so ruling, the Delaware court’s decision is somewhat at odds with the decision issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Enron bankruptcy cases. See Enron Corp. v.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) filed an objection on June 14, 2012, in the Delaware bankruptcy court proceedings of RG Steel ("Debtor"), challenging a recent sale by RG Steel's parent entity ("Parent") of a 25-percent ownership stake in the Debtor. If the sale is respected, Parent would fall outside of the Debtor's "controlled group" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), with the result that Parent may cease to have joint liability for the Debtor's unfunded pension obligations.

It is common knowledge that the Bankruptcy Code provides a debtor with a “fresh start” by allowing it to discharge prepetition claims. Similarly, section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee or debtor in possession to sell property of the estate “free and clear” of prior claims. These two concepts, while relatively straightforward, raise a fundamental question — when does a creditor hold a “claim” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code?

Borrowers who file a bankruptcy petition are always looking for creative new challenges to claims asserted by their bank creditors.  In recent years, debtors have argued that a bank’s issuance of an Internal Revenue Code form 1099-C “Cancellation of Debt” has the effect of waiving the bank’s claims against the borrower, and should preclude the bank from having an allowed claim in the bankruptcy case.  Fortunately, some recent court opinions state that a bank’s issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute a waiver, and the bank remains entitled to enforce its claim in a subsequent bank