The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, applying Illinois law in an unpublished decision, has held that Celotex's failure to provide its excess insurers notice of lawsuits claiming more than $2 billion in property damage until after Celotex entered bankruptcy precluded coverage for asbestos-related property damage under numerous policies. Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Cont'l Ins. Co. (in re Celotex Corp.), No. 06-15748, 2008 WL 2637094 (11th Cir. July 7, 2008).

In a recent decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Federal Mogul Global, Inc., No. 01-10578 (JKF) (Bankr. D. Del., Mar. 19, 2008) (click here to read the decision), the court ruled that the assignment of rights in certain insurance policies to an asbestos trust was valid and enforceable under the Bankruptcy Code, and anti-assignment provisions in the policies and applicable state law were preempted.

On July 17, 2008, in Phar-Mor, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (Nos 05-4525/4526), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Ohio's ruling that a vendor's administrative expense priority on its reclamation claim survives, even after the goods that are subject to reclamation are sold and the proceeds are used to satisfy a secured creditor's superior claim. Full text of the opinion.

Facts

Bankruptcy practitioners and plan beneficiaries should take note of a little-known ERISA amendment that impacts bankruptcy cases filed on or after September 16, 2006. On June 30, 2008, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") released a proposed rule clarifying how Section 404 ("Section 404") of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the "PPA") will be implemented. Section 404 amends Title IV of ERISA in certain key respects.

According to press reports, Tammy Andreycak, a former director of accounting at Le-Nature’s Inc., recently pleaded guilty to multiple fraud charges in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The charges included bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and filing false income-tax returns, all allegedly taking place between 2003 and 2006. Andreycak is the first person to be prosecuted in the fraudulent scheme alleged to have occurred at Le-Nature’s.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has affirmed two final orders of the bankruptcy court finding that (1) the debtor's insurers lacked standing to object to confirmation of the bankruptcy plan; (2) a channeling injunction for silica claims was appropriately included in the debtor's plan; (3) an assignment of the debtor's rights under its insurance policies to the personal injury trust was authorized by bankruptcy law; and (4) the debtor's reorganization plan was confirmable under the Bankruptcy Code. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has held that an excess liability insurer had no standing to object to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtor's reorganization plan where the plan, although requiring contributions from the insurer's policyholder, was not contingent on the policyholder obtaining any funds or proceeds from its insurer. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al. v. North Am. Refractories Cos. et al., Civ. Action No. 07-1750, Bankr. Case No. 02-20198 (JFK) (W. D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2008).

Your franchisee files bankruptcy; is this good news or bad news? It could be either depending on whether the debtor wishes to keep the franchise in place or plans to let it go. The Bankruptcy Code has special rules on how a debtor can treat this type of agreement where it was entered into prior to the filing of the bankruptcy and remains in effect as of the time the case was filed.

For the third time in as many years, the Delaware Chancery Court has handed down an important ruling interpreting the interaction between federal bankruptcy law and Delaware corporate law. The thorny question this time was whether a bankruptcy court’s determination that the directors of a corporation acted in good faith when they authorized a chapter 11 filing precluded a subsequent claim that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by doing so. The Delaware Chancery Court concluded that it did, ruling in Nelson v.

The ability of a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) or bankruptcy trustee to assume or reject unexpired leases or contracts that are “executory” as of the bankruptcy filing date is one of the most important entitlements created by the Bankruptcy Code. It allows a DIP to rid itself of onerous contracts and to preserve contracts that can either benefit its reorganized business or be assigned to generate value for the bankruptcy estate and/or fund distributions to creditors under a chapter 11 plan.