Organizations that acquire claims in bankruptcy should acquire such claims by a sale without knowledge of the debtors’ claims against the original holder or prior transferees, and obtain an indemnification from the transferor of such claims.

In previous editions of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on a pair of highly controversial rulings handed down in late 2005 and early 2006 by the New York bankruptcy court overseeing the chapter 11 cases of embattled energy broker Enron Corporation and its affiliates. In the first, Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez held that a claim is subject to equitable subordination under section 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code even if it is assigned to a third-party transferee who was not involved in any misconduct committed by the original holder of the debt.

In a decision in In re Enron Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129, No. 05-01025 (S.D.N.Y. August 27, 2007), the Honorable Shira Scheindlin, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, held that the sale of a claim that is subject to equitable subordination under section 510(c) or disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code may insulate the claim from subordination and disallowance when asserted against the buyer of the claim. At first blush the decision may be, and has been, read by some to offer relief and clarity to distressed debt investors.

A recent federal district court appellate decision issued in the Enron chapter 11 case1 has ruled that the postpetition transfer of a prepetition bankruptcy claim from one party to another may insulate the transferred claim against certain types of attack based solely on conduct by a prior holder of the same claim. Whether a particular claim is protected depends upon how the claim was transferred.

If you hold a claim in bankruptcy by way of a transfer, you may need to be sure the transaction was accomplished by a sale and not merely by an assignment. Yet another decision highlights the growing complexity in bankruptcy claims as we discuss below.

A recent ruling by a federal court in New York has the potential to severely impact the $500 billion a year distressed debt market.

In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. Court”) exercised its abstention powers and dismissed an involuntary chapter 11 petition filed against an Argentine company, Compania de Alimentos Fargo, SA (“Fargo”).1 Fargo, a debtor in an insolvency proceeding in Argentina, had moved to dismiss the involuntary petition principally because its Argentine bankruptcy case was still pending.

There has been no shortage of victims in this financial crisis. Pensions and retirement savings have been severely reduced, jobs have been lost and once powerful financial institutions have failed. But, there is, perhaps, another victim that has largely gone unnoticed: the rule of law.

In his Evil Empire speech before the British House of Commons in June 1982, President Ronald Reagan refocused American political values on the rule of law.

As we have recently noted, the federal banking agencies have worked together to expand the pool of investors eligible to bid to acquire failing depository institutions. See our 21st Century Money, Banking & Commerce Alert entitled “OCC Approves Shelf Charter for National Banks to Encourage New Investment” (Nov. 25, 2008). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has recently modified the receivership process in less obvious ways that also may have important ramifications for investors. 

On January 6, 2009, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) re-introduced H.R. 200, “Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act.” First introduced in the fall of 2007 by Durbin in the Senate and by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in the House, this bill has been the subject of three hearings, but faces opposition primarily from Republicans and representatives of the mortgage industry.