I. Summary

On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a requirements contract for the supply of electricity constituted a “forward contract” under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, was exempt from preference avoidance actions.  The Fifth Circuit held that the contract in this case met the plain language definition of a “forward contract,” notwithstanding the fact that it lacked fixed quantity and delivery date terms.  Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc. (In re MBS Mgmt. Servs., Inc.), 2012 WL 3125167 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).

Since the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, casinos owned by Native American tribes have proliferated across tribal lands and have generated billions of dollars in revenue annually.  While casinos such as Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are among the largest and well-known tribal casinos, over 60 exist in the State of California, where many dozen small properties have sprung up throughout the state in recent years, in some cases built in part with the proceeds of high-yield bond debt.  This recent growth spurt juxtaposed with the prolonged downturn in consumer spending

On August 31, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit published its first decision expressly adopting an abuse of discretion standard for reviewing equitable mootness determinations by district courts. In In re Charter Communications, Inc., the Second Circuit followed the Third and Tenth Circuits, while also reaffirming the Second Circuit’s rebuttable presumption of equitable mootness upon substantial consummation of a debtor’s plan.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reiterated its position that the doctrine of equitable mootness should only apply if granting relief on appeal would undermine a consummated bankruptcy plan. In In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, the Third Circuit held that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania abused its discretion when summarily finding that the appeal at issue was equitably moot simply because the appellants failed to seek a stay and the debtors’ plan had been substantially consummated.

Late last week, Judge Shelley C. Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York heard arguments from a number of parties regarding whether the New York bankruptcy court is the proper venue for Patriot Coal Corporation’s bankruptcy cases. In re Patriot Coal Corp., Case No. 1:12-bk-12900. Judge Chapman did not rule on the venue question from the bench. Instead, the parties will wait for a ruling while proceeding with the bankruptcy case.

On June 28, 2012, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granting Ahapura Minechem Ltd.’s petition for recognition of its Indian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Armada v. Shah (In re Ashapura Minechem Ltd.), 2012 WL 2478467 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2012).

Judge Martin Glenn of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently ruled that Borders gift card holders did not qualify as “known creditors.” The Court concluded that the gift card holders were entitled only to publication notice rather than actual notice of the bar date for filing bankruptcy claims in Borders’ chapter 11 case.

On August, 15, 2012, Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane of the Southern District of New York denied American’s motion to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) on narrow grounds. The Court held that American had not demonstrated that its proposals to eliminate contractual restrictions on pilot furloughs and enter into essentially unlimited codesharing arrangements were necessary to its reorganization.

On July 10, 2012, Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District  of New York ruled that so-called “soft dollar” claims do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act.  The decision represents the first time that any court has been asked to determine the status of “soft dollar” claims under SIPA.  In re Lehman Brothers Inc., No. 08-01420, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3103 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2012).

Background