Only twice has the U.S. Supreme Court spoken directly to environmental issues in bankruptcy – until now. Today the Supreme Court ruled that certain claims can in fact be barred by a bankruptcy court's channeling injunction. The case is particularly important in light of the major corporate bankruptcies now under way in the industrial sector, where environmental costs can drive the success or failure of a restructuring.

Bankruptcy is a highly specialized legal practice area that can be difficult for the non-lawyer to navigate. Bankruptcy can also present many traps for the unwary. A bankruptcy or distressed financial situation will in most cases materially affect a company’s key relationships, customers, suppliers and business partners. All company decision makers need an understanding of how to react to protect their organization’s interests. Here are ten practical considerations to recognize in this distressed environment.

Introduction

On March 30, 2009, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey,1 a case that addresses the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts to authorize third-party releases in the context of a debtor’s plan of reorganization.

The current economic recession has, not surprisingly, led to a significant downturn in the domestic gaming industry. During 2008, revenue growth in the U.S. gaming industry turned negative for the first time in four years. Data for the first quarter of 2009 indicate that the monthly gaming revenues of casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City declined more than 15% as compared to the first quarter of last year.1 Public gaming company stock prices are down more than 80% on average, and many gaming companies have postponed or canceled development projects.

In Hutson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

In In re City of Vallejo,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held recently that the City of Vallejo has the authority to reject its collective bargaining agreements with the city’s firefighters and electrical workers as part of its chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding without going through the process detailed in section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court determined that a municipality does not need to comply with the stringent requirements that corporations face when seeking to reject a collective bargaining agreement (a “CBA”).

vWe are on pace to see a record number of business bankruptcies in 2009, with a notable amount of activity in the retail, manufacturing and automotive sectors. In light of the impact of today's bankruptcies on vendors of goods, it is worthwhile to revisit one of the protections afforded to trade creditors under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

A Florida bankruptcy court recently clarified what constitutes a contract to extend financial accommodations for the benefit of the debtor, and the circumstances in which those contracts could be assumed, rejected or terminated. In re Ernie Haire Ford, Inc., 403 B.R. 750 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”), entered an order on July 2, 2009 (the “Bar Date Order”), establishing September 22, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) as the deadline for the filing of claims against the Debtors (the “Bar Date”).

Lear Corporation and related U.S., Canadian, and Cayman Island affiliates (“Lear”) filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on July 7, 2009 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“Bankruptcy Court”). Lear intends to continue to operate its businesses while in bankruptcy. Other than certain Lear related entities based in Canada and the Cayman Islands, Lear’s non-U.S. subsidiaries do not appear to be included in Lear’s U.S. bankruptcy filing and apparently will continue to operate outside the supervision and jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.