The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion that should concern anyone doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy. In short, the court ruled that a company that supplied $1.9 million worth of goods to a debtor after the petition date had to return the debtor's payment. The reason? The debtor did not have permission from the court or its secured creditor to use the money. The payments were for value given post-petition and were apparently made in accordance with the pre-petition practice between the parties.

Decisions emerging from the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases are helping to define the parameters of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbors for derivative transactions (see Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights Alert, January 28, 2010).

The Bankruptcy Court has now provided its long-awaited answer as to the scope of the Securities Investors Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) liability for investor accounts with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”). The ruling in favor of Irving Picard, the trustee responsible for the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) liquidation of Madoff, precludes recovery for many of the victims of Bernard Madoff’s infamous ponzi scheme and leaves the scope of the SIPC protection uncertain in future cases.

On March 22, 2010, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a highly anticipated decision in the matter of In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC, 2010 WL 1006647, (3rd Cir. Case No.

Introduction

Trade creditors take note: even though Chapter 11 debtors may continue purchasing goods and services and may continue operating in the ordinary course of their business, an earned cash payment in the creditor’s hands may not be safe from recovery. Moreover if you are a party to a supply contract and under an obligation to continue to furnish goods or services, the payments you receive may be recoverable by a subsequently appointed trustee.

On March 18th, the Fifth Circuit held that a U.S. bankruptcy court may offer avoidance relief under a foreign country's law in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiffs had been appointed trustees by a Nevis court in a Nevis winding up petition. Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 15 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. alleging that the debtor had transferred assets to put them out of the reach of the Nevis court. The U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court’s ruling that, where subordination agreements lacked explicit provisions addressing the payment of post-petition interest on senior unsecured debt, the agreements were ambiguous, and an inquiry into the parties’ intent was required. After probing the facts and analyzing New York law, the bankruptcy court determined that the contracting parties did not intend to subordinate the junior unsecured debt to post-petition interest on the senior debt.

Background

On June 23, 2011, the US Supreme Court issued a narrowly-divided decision in Stern v. Marshall, limiting Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction over certain types of claims. The Court found that while the Bankruptcy Court was statutorily authorized to enter final judgment on a tortious interference counterclaim (as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C)), it was not constitutionally authorized to do so.

Summary