Given the state of the economy, it will not be a rare occurrence in the short term for a supplier to receive a request to sell and deliver further goods to a purchaser who has filed proceedings under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code — and who is already indebted for unpaid pre-filing sales.

Introduction

In a decision issued on June 26, 2008, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the earmarking doctrine does not provide a refuge for late-perfecting secured creditors and thus does not shield the creditor from preference exposure in a subsequently filed bankruptcy case.Lee v. Shapiro.

On April 9, 2008, in the M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. bankruptcy case pending in the Southern District of New York, Chief Judge Stuart M. Bernstein held that a seller of bank debt under the standard LSTA claims transfer documents transfers all of its rights except for those explicitly retained, including unmatured contingent claims, thus giving broad construction to the term “Transferred Rights” under the standard LSTA trade documents.

The November/December 2007 issue of Insolvency Notes featured an article highlighting a Manhattan-based federal bankruptcy court's refusal to officially recognize proceedings commenced in the Cayman Islands to liquidate two Bear Stearns-managed hedge funds that collapsed in June of that year.

In Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Phar-Mor, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a lessor-claimant whose lease was rejected pursuant to section 365(a) of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code was entitled to a claim for future-rent damages against the debtor, even though the lessor had entered into a nearly identical substitute lease. The Court concluded that efforts to mitigate damages by the lessor would not be considered in reducing the actual damage claim when those efforts failed to reduce the actual harm suffered by the lessor.

In COR Route 5 Co. v. Penn Traffic Co.1 (In re Penn Traffic Co), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a non-debtor party to an executory contract may not, by fulfilling its contractual obligations post-petition, deprive the debtor of its ability to reject an executory contract.

In a recent opinion,1 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York emphasized that foreign confidentiality statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence — even though the act of production may be considered a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdiction and subject the party to serious consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

Background

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.