Utility Services—Darby v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (In re Darby), No. 05-20931 (5th Cir., Nov. 14, 2006)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held, in an issue of first impression in the circuit, that a cable service provider was not a utility under section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the cable company was not obligated to provide services to a bankrupt debtor, even though the debtor offered assurances of future payment. The ruling affirmed the holdings of two lower courts.

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that a claim for damages based on a chapter 11 debtor’s failure to issue shares of its common stock in exchange for a claimant’s stock in another company pursuant to a termination agreement is subject to mandatory subordination.

In Rombro v. Dufrayne (In re Med Diversified, Inc.), 461 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2006), the court held that the claim “arose from” the purchase of the debtor’s stock within the meaning and purpose of the Bankruptcy Code’s subordination provision.

Lender Had Duty To Investigate Claim to Promissory Note

In a harsh decision for the lender, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has determined that a debtor’s loan may be discharged in chapter 7 bankruptcy— despite the borrower’s admission that his personal financial statement contained materially false representations about his financial condition.

A recent bankruptcy court decision in the Southern District of New York may raise concern among brokerage firms who execute and clear brokerage transactions for hedge funds and similar investment vehicles. The bankruptcy trustee of the Manhattan Investment Fund (which the court found to be a Ponzi scheme and whose principal Michael Berger pled guilty to criminal charges) obtained summary judgment against Bear Stearns requiring it to return to the bankruptcy estate all the margin payments the fund had made in the year before it imploded, totaling $141.4 million.

In light of the continued favorable business climate and ample liquidity in the U.S., the falloff in business bankruptcy filings in 2006 should come as no big surprise. Unlike 2005, which added three new stars to the all-time hit parade of chapter 11 “mega” cases, 2006 saw no new additions to the Top 10 list for public-company chapter 11 filings. Overall, the number of business bankruptcy filings dropped 20 percent in fiscal year 2006, the fifth straight year a decline was reported, according to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in October of 2006.

Entities doing business with a customer that files for bankruptcy protection generally have the right to refuse to continue providing goods or services to the chapter 11 debtor, unless such goods or services are covered by a continuing contract, in which case any forfeiture of the debtor’s rights under the agreement is generally prohibited to afford the debtor a reasonable opportunity to decide what to do with the contract.

A debtor’s exclusive right to formulate and solicit acceptances for a plan of reorganization during the initial stages of a chapter 11 case is one of the most important benefits conferred under the Bankruptcy Code as a means of facilitating the successful restructuring of an ailing enterprise. By giving a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession time to devise a solution to balance sheet and operational problems without being burdened by the competing agendas of other stakeholders in the bankruptcy case, exclusivity levels the playing field, at least temporarily.

Following the rule that swap agreements should be netted after contract termination, a New York bankruptcy court has held that such agreements also should be netted following rejection in bankruptcy.

“Although rejection of an agreement does not equal termination,” Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez acknowledged in In re Enron Corp., 349 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2006), “this does not affect the determination of…rejection damages. Termination of swap agreements generally requires that the parties’ positions be netted.”

“Rejection leads to a similar result,” he stated.

Can the nondebtor party to an executory contract withhold services to the debtor postpetition if the debtor breached the contract prepetition?

Many view this as a settled area of bankruptcy law, and believe that the answer is “no” as long as the debtor is performing postpetition. Commentators of this view question how a debtor could ever reorganize if nondebtors did not have to perform under contracts postpetition, particularly if the debtor’s business is entirely dependant upon the contract at issue.

The ability of a creditor whose claim is “impaired” to vote on a chapter 11 plan is one of the most important rights conferred on creditors under the Bankruptcy Code. The voting process is an indispensable aspect of safeguards built into the statute designed to ensure that any plan ultimately confirmed by the bankruptcy court meets with the approval of requisite majorities of a debtor’s creditors and shareholders and satisfies certain minimum standards of fairness.