As previously reported (3/17/08 post), this case involves the interpretation of the terms of a reinsurance contract and the duties of the parties under that contract. In the most recent development, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming in part, and reversing in part, a prior decision of the bankruptcy court regarding the reinsurance contract at issue.

Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez presided over hearings May 20, 2009, in this mega bankruptcy case. There were 21 matters on the agenda, as well as an emergency motion, that were heard or adjourned to a later date, in approximately two and a half hours of hearings (click here for a link to the audio file provided by the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York; it may take a moment to load before playing).

Retiree benefits are often a central issue in bankruptcy cases. For many employers the high cost of retiree medical benefits has been a significant contributing factor to the Chapter 11 filing and a matter of ongoing concern if the debtor is to be able to successfully reorganize. Understandably, employees, retirees and unions are equally concerned about the status of retiree benefits. Their obvious interest is to attempt to prevent the erosion of benefits that had been expected to be available during retirement.

In the last decade, commercial landlords have favored obtaining from tenants standby letters of credit over security deposits because standby letters of credit provided added security in the event of a tenant’s bankruptcy.

On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.

Our May 11th memo entitled “General Growth Properties Bankruptcy Court Defers Final Ruling on Cash Collateral, Cash Management and DIP Financing Issues” concluded that the ultimate impact of the bankruptcy filings of General Growth Properties, Inc. and its affiliates would depend in large part on how the cash collateral and DIP Loan issues were resolved. On May 13th, Judge Allan L. Gropper, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge before whom these bankruptcies are pending, entered final orders on the pending cash collateral, cash management and debtor-in-possession financing motions.

This morning, General Motors Corp. (GM) announced in a Form 8-K filing that the U.S. Treasury Department has proposed details of a reorganization plan to GM in the event that GM seeks bankruptcy protection and bankruptcy court approval for the sale of substantially all of its assets to a newly organized company (New GM) pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (363 Sale). Following the proposed 363 Sale, the U.S.

The recent ruling by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana in the Chapter 11 case of In re Yellowstone Mountain Club LLC 1 (“Yellowstone”), which found that a senior secured lender had engaged in “overreaching and predatory lending practices”, suggests an application of lender liability theory from today’s perspective to a transaction that took place before the credit crisis.  

On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation (“GM”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York (the “Court”). Pursuant to numerous first day motions filed by GM, the Court has entered various orders relating to the administration of this bankruptcy proceeding. Of particular significance to GM’s suppliers are the following:

1. Deadlines Relating to the Assumption of Supplier Contracts.

On April 16, General Growth Properties, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (“GGP”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. GGP operates a national network of approximately 200 shopping centers. To the surprise of many, most of GGP’s property-specific SPE subsidiaries (“SPE Debtors”) also filed for bankruptcy.