A known creditor, which was aware of a debtor’s pending bankruptcy but did not receive legally required notice of the debtor’s chapter 11 case, was not barred from bringing a state action following bankruptcy discharge.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that actual knowledge of the pending chapter 11 case did not satisfy due process requirements; therefore, the known creditor’s subsequent claim was not barred by the debtor’s discharge injunction. Arch Wireless, Inc. v. Nationwide Paging, Inc. (In re Arch Wireless, Inc.), 534 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a bankruptcy trustee could not avoid an unauthorized sale of real estate to a bona fide purchaser— although the proceeds of the sale did belong to the estate.

The court ruled that an unauthorized postpetition transfer of real property in California could be avoided only if the buyer had actual knowledge of a bankruptcy filing, or if the trustee recorded the transfer of title to the property from the debtor to the estate in the land records of the applicable county, In re Tippett, 542 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2008).

Troubled economic times predictably result in an escalation in bankruptcy filings. As the economy began to worsen last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a reminder that courts can—and will—penalize parties that tax an already busy bankruptcy court system with bad faith filings.

Under the “American Rule” concerning the recovery of attorney’s fees in pursuing breach of contract litigation, the prevailing party is awarded fees if the contract or an applicable statute provides for such recovery. Some states also allow a judgment creditor to recover fees incurred in enforcing the judgment, if the judgment was based on a contract or statute that authorized fees in the original litigation. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040.

Yesterday, in a bankruptcy court hearing held for Chrysler LLC (and 24 of its wholly owned subsidiaries), which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last Thursday, U.S.

Today, the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), held a hearing on the effects of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on state and local governments and other publicly-funded entities.

Testifying at the hearing were the following witnesses:

Panel One:

The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.  

AGRICULTURE  

Greenhouse farmer Eurofresh Inc. files Chapter 11 in Arizona.  

AUTOMOTIVE  

In light of the continuing economic downturn, many issuers with periodic reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are or may be faced with the prospect of reorganizing or liquidating under the United States Bankruptcy Code. These issuers must file their Exchange Act reports under the strain of the bankruptcy process, which imposes practical difficulties in completing and timely filing the reports during a time when resources are limited. Can these reporting requirements be modified so that issuers can more readily satisfy them?

Chrysler and Affiliates File for Bankruptcy Protection

Chrysler LLC and related affiliates (“Chrysler”) filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on April 30, 2009, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“Bankruptcy Court”). Chrysler intends to continue to operate its businesses while in bankruptcy. Chrysler’s non-U.S. subsidiaries do not appear to be included in Chrysler’s U.S. bankruptcy filing and will continue to operate outside the supervision and jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

On April 8, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that creates an additional hurdle for companies providing single-employer pension funds when seeking to reorganize through a bankruptcy. In general, the termination of a pension plan can give rise to a per-employee termination premium (a “Termination Premium”) owed by the company terminating the plan to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), the quasi-governmental entity that insures pension plans.