The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) purported to eliminate the ability of chapter 11 debtors in possession to pay bonuses to management through Key Employee Retention Plans. However, in recognition of the fact that a real need often exists to incentivize key employees to remain with a reorganizing or liquidating business, bankruptcy courts have approved incentive plans providing for payments to insiders and other employees. Such plans must be carefully crafted to avoid the restrictions on retention bonuses post-BAPCPA.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has affirmed two final orders of the bankruptcy court finding that (1) the debtor's insurers lacked standing to object to confirmation of the bankruptcy plan; (2) a channeling injunction for silica claims was appropriately included in the debtor's plan; (3) an assignment of the debtor's rights under its insurance policies to the personal injury trust was authorized by bankruptcy law; and (4) the debtor's reorganization plan was confirmable under the Bankruptcy Code. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has a track record of deciding major asbestos-bankruptcy issues, will hear the appeal of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al. v. American Capital Equipment, LLC et al. (In re American Capital Equipment, LLC et al.), No. 07-2546 (3d Cir.). This case presents issues regarding an insurer's ability to challenge a pre-packaged bankruptcy filed by policyholders solely to reach insurance proceeds, including whether such a filing is subject to dismissal for "bad faith" under the Bankruptcy Code.

The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that Congoleum's pre-packaged bankruptcy plan settling asbestos claims is not enforceable against its insurers. The court found that the plan was unreasonable and that, under the terms of the plan, insurance obligations are not triggered because it was not shown that Congoleum was "legally obligated to pay" the claimants who would receive payments. Congoleum Corp. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. MID-L-8908-01 (N.J. Super. Ct. May 18, 2007).

Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements

The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context.  In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”

The last several years have seen bankruptcy filings from prominent retail chains such as Borders, Circuit City, Blockbuster, Movie Gallery and Ritz Camera. Many of these cases have resulted in liquidation. For commercial landlords, retail bankruptcy cases present a number of potentially damaging issues, including nonpayment of rent, assignment of the lease to an unworthy tenant, vacant space in an otherwise popular location and going-out-of business sales.

In November of 2010, the trustee for the Circuit City Stores, Inc., liquidating trust filed more than 500 adversary proceedings against creditors seeking the recovery of alleged preferential payments. The extent of the trustee's success in recovering these payments will impact the overall distribution to creditors. Creditors in bankruptcy cases should be aware that preference litigation allows a trustee or debtor-in-possession to recover payments received by a creditor during the period immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing.

A federal district court in Delaware, applying New York law, has affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion.Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2392882 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2009).

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, applying Illinois law in an unpublished decision, has held that Celotex's failure to provide its excess insurers notice of lawsuits claiming more than $2 billion in property damage until after Celotex entered bankruptcy precluded coverage for asbestos-related property damage under numerous policies. Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Cont'l Ins. Co. (in re Celotex Corp.), No. 06-15748, 2008 WL 2637094 (11th Cir. July 7, 2008).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, applying federal law, has reversed a bankruptcy court's ruling that the proceeds of an E&O liability policy were property of a bankruptcy estate. In re Burr Wolff, LP, 2007 WL 2964835 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2007). The court held instead that the issue was not ripe for adjudication because a declaratory judgment action concerning the insurer's obligations under the policy was pending, and thus "no proceeds" were currently available.