In In re Entringer Bakeries, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the viability of the “earmarking doctrine” as a judicially-created defense to a preference action under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Introduction
Introduction
In the March 2008 issue, we discussed a decision from the In re Urban Communicators PCS, Ltd. Partnership1 case. In that decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that under section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court could limit the rate of postpetition interest to be paid to an over-secured creditor to an amount less than the contract interest rate.
In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has ruled that a creditor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, despite pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff. In re SemCrude, L.P., Case No. 08-11525 (BLS), 2009 WL 68873 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 9, 2009). The Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to mutual obligations between a debtor and a single nondebtor.
In ABN Amro Bank N.V. v. Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A. (In re Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A.),1 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of an injunction pursuant to former section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code (the precursor to current chapter 15, applicable in crossborder insolvency proceedings), which prevented the beneficiary of a guaranty governed by New York law from asserting its guaranty claim against Italian debtor (and guarantor) Parmalat S.p.A. (“Parmalat”) in the United States.
In Henderson v. Powermate Holding Corp. (In re Powermate Holding Corp.)1, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware became the second bankruptcy court to address the status of WARN Act claims after the 2005 amendments to section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In In re River Center Holdings, LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to permit lenders to enforce an oral commitment of the debtors’ principal to fund certain litigation. In River Center, the debtors’ principal had stated at a hearing that he would fund a condemnation action relating to property that served as collateral for the lenders’ financing.
In In re Arch Wireless,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a creditor who asserted claims against the debtor in various correspondence between the parties was a “known” claimant of the debtor’s estate entitled to direct notice of the bar date by which it must file a proof of claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that publication notice was insufficient to inform the creditor of the bar date or of the terms of the confirmed plan, even though the creditor was generally aware of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.