The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a creditor trustee could not recover claims under a Director & Officer insurance policy because of the policy's "insured v. insured" exclusion. Biltmore Assocs., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., Ad. No. 07-16036, 2009 US App. LEXIS 15322 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009).

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a long-awaited decision that many practitioners had hoped would provide insight into the permissible breadth of third-party releases and injunctions often contained in confirmed chapter 11 plans. The high court, however, narrowly resolved the issue presented in Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 129 S.Ct. 2195 (2009), and left open that ultimate question.

It seems safe to assume that no lender would extend high-dollar credit without first having a deep knowledge of the party accepting the funds. Certainly, such deep knowledge would include the precise legal name of that borrower. Nevertheless, recent cases continue to demonstrate the prevalence of filing UCC-1 financing statements that may be deemed “seriously misleading” as to the name of the debtor and, therefore, ineffective to fix the secured creditor’s place in the chain of priority.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing to discuss the role of bankruptcy and antitrust law in financial regulatory reform, particularly with respect to institutions that may be regarded as “too big to fail,” as highlighted during the financial crisis.

Testifying before the Subcommittee were the following witnesses:

Panel I

On October 13, 2009, a Florida bankruptcy judge in the TOUSA, Inc.

The October 15, 2009 decision of the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re Pillowtex opens the door for creditors in the Third Circuit to increase their "new value" preference defense under the "subsequent advance" approach.In re Pillowtex, No. 03-12339 (Bankr. D. Del. filed Oct. 15, 2009).

A trustee’s power to avoid preference payments is circumscribed by the statutory defenses set forth in section 547(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. The "subsequent new value" defense set forth in section 547(c)(4) has three well-established elements:

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.  

AUTOMOTIVE

Accuride Corp., an Evansville, Ind.-based maker of medium- and heavy-duty steel and aluminum wheels may file for bankruptcy under a prearranged agreement with bondholders and senior lenders.  

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved debtor Magna Entertainment Corp.’s proposed bidding procedures for the sale of Maryland’s Pimlico Race Course, home to the Preakness Stakes, and Laurel Park race course over the objections from former owners and state authorities. The former owners, together with Baltimore’s mayor and city council and the state of Maryland, objected to the expedited time frame, arguing that the debtor failed to provide parties in interest with sufficient time to respond to the proposed procedures.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has granted debtors Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s request to pursue a plan for developer SunCal Co., which is subject to a pending bankruptcy case in the Central District of California. Prior to LBHI’s bankruptcy filing, the debtors had provided SunCal with funding in an amount of approximately $2.2 billion. In January, SunCal commenced an adversary proceeding in its own bankruptcy case seeking to have LBHI’s claims subordinated. SunCal opposes LBHI’s filing a plan and has put forth its own plan in the case.

On October 2, the official committee of unsecured creditors in the chapter 11 cases of Lyondell Chemical Co. filed a motion for the appointment of an examiner in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The committee asserts that an examiner is needed to investigate allegations of a conflicted rights offering sponsor, the debtors’ refusal to refinance the debtor-in-possession credit facility, and the debtors’ refusal to formulate a plan of reorganization with an appropriate reserve for unsecured creditors pending resolution of the committee’s adversary proceeding.