Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a creditor’s claim is a “secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property”—that is, it is a secured claim for an amount equal to the present value of the collateral—and is an “unsecured claim” for the remainder. Section 506(d) provides that, “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.”

On February 7, 2011, in a highly anticipated decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that in Chapter 11 reorganizations, senior creditors may not “gift” recoveries to junior creditors and/or equity interest holders over the objection of an intervening class. In In re DBSD N.A., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 350480 (2d Cir. 2011), the majority ruled that such “gift plans” run afoul of the “absolute priority rule,” which is codified in Section 1129(b) of Bankruptcy Code. The decision has significant implications for future bankruptcy cases in New York.

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.

On September 1, 2021, Judge Robert Drain issued a much-anticipated oral ruling approving Purdue Pharma L.P.’s plan of reorganization. The plan, which has garnered significant attention from the media, legislators, academics, and practitioners, releases current and future members of the Sackler family and many of their associates and affiliated companies – none of whom filed for bankruptcy themselves – from liability in connection with any possible harm caused by OxyContin and other opioids that Purdue Pharma manufactured and distributed.

Credit bidding is a mechanism, enshrined in the US bankruptcy legislation, whereby a secured creditor can ‘bid’ the amount of its secured debt, as consideration for the purchase of the assets over which it holds security. In effect, it allows the secured creditor to offset the secured debt as payment for the assets and to take ownership of those assets without necessarily having to pay any cash for the purchase. Whilst there is no statutory equivalent in the UK, the process has evolved here into an accepted practice.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in Edward S. Weisfelner, as Litigation Trustee of the LB Creditor Trust v. Fund 1., et al.

The treatment of derivatives, or “qualified financial contracts”, under state insurance insolvency laws has received increased attention since the financial crisis. Four states passed laws in 2010 that allow for the exercise of certain netting collateral and termination provisions in an insurance insolvency without regard to the automatic stay mechanism and similar laws are anticipated in other states in 2011. Federal laws provide a level of certainty with respect to the treatment of certain swap agreement provisions in a general corporate bankruptcy. The U.S.

In a decision that will be of great interest to the creditor community, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, on November 5, 2009, that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys’ fees that was authorized under a valid prepetition contract. The case, Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland,1 extends and clarifies the US Supreme Court’s March 2007 decision in the Travelers case,2 which opened the door for such a ruling.

In a recent opinion from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the Dura Automotive Systems bankruptcy case,[1] Judge Karen Owens held that executory contracts cannot be impliedly assumed through course of conduct by the parties, under binding Third Circuit precedent, notwithstanding that a minority of courts outside of the Third Circuit have allowed it

Can state regulatory agencies move ahead with lawsuits against businesses who file for bankruptcy in order to enforce consumer protection and business laws, or does the automatic stay’s broad injunctive sweep capture those actions? The answer depends on whether the state is acting in its regulatory capacity or simply like another creditor – and the distinction is not always clear.