On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the decision of Stern v. Marshall, debatably the most important case on bankruptcy court jurisdiction in the last 30 years. The 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, established limits on the power of bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments on certain state law created causes of action.

A measure that places a Receiver in charge of Harrisburg’s finances is expected to be approved by the Senate on October 17, despite the recent move by City Council to file for bankruptcy.

“From our point of view nothing has changed,” said State Rep. Glen Grell, R-Cumberland, who worked on the Receiver legislation with State Senator Jeff Piccola, R-Dauphin. “The bankruptcy move is specifically forbidden under legislation we passed in June. I don’t think there’s any doubt it will be challenged and pretty quickly dismissed.”

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.

In re GALP Highcross Limited Partnership (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Case no. 11-36741
In re GALP Waters Limited Partnership (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Case no. 11-36743

In re Culver Village, LLC (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) Case no. 11-46359

This past quarter end once again reminded us that the economy remains weak and borrowers who have managed to hang on for the past three or four years are running out of staying power. The topic again arose - what to do when a borrower files bankruptcy? Faced with the prospect of throwing good money after bad, some lenders bury their head in the sand and simply wait it out, often with terrible results. Others charge ahead aggressively and run up large legal bills that are not justified by the amount of the obligation or the difficulty of recovery.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court), has held that section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits a swap counterparty from setting off amounts owed to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor to affiliates of the counterparty, notwithstanding the safe harbor provision in section 561 of the Bankruptcy Code and language in the ISDA Master Agreement permitting the swap counterparty to effect “triangular” setoffs. In re Lehman Brothers Inc., Case No. 08-01420 (JMP)(SIPA) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. October 4, 2011).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes.  The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.

On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a contractual right of a triangular (non-mutual) setoff was unenforceable in bankruptcy, even though the contract was safe harbored. In re Lehman Brothers, Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011).

On July 22, 2011, Bankruptcy Judge Craig A.