Lawmakers’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s bankruptcy laws two years ago as part of the sweeping reforms implemented by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA ”) failed to resolve a number of important business bankruptcy issues that have been and continue to be the subject of protracted debate among the bankruptcy and appellate courts.

A fundamental premise of chapter 11 is that a debtor’s prebankruptcy management is presumed to provide the most capable and dedicated leadership for the company and should be allowed to continue operating the company’s business and managing its assets in bankruptcy while devising a viable business plan or other workable exit strategy. The chapter 11 “debtor-in-possession” (“DIP ”) is a concept rooted strongly in modern U.S. bankruptcy jurisprudence. Still, the presumption can be overcome.

The nature of online commerce requires the collection of information from individuals to identify the parties to individual transactions, transfer funds for payment, and ensure the delivery of the goods or services being acquired. Public concern about the potential for abuse of such information by online merchants gave rise to the development of so-called "privacy policies" that provide a measure of reassurance that information collected will be protected from unauthorized use and disclosure.

A purchaser of a business who fails to consider the seller's Georgia sales and use tax obligations does so at the purchaser's own peril. In the recent tax case of JD Design Group, Inc. v. Graham, the ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court makes that point all too clear.

Background

Following a recent ruling in the Delphi Corporation bankruptcy case approving cure notices and cure claims procedures, purchasers of unsecured trade claims originating out of executory contracts or unexpired leases should take special precautions to protect their rights or risk impairment or loss of such claims to the extent they become cure claims.

Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?

Can market capitalization be used to evidence the solvency of bankrupt debtors? A recent bankruptcy case out of the District of Delaware suggests that it can.1

We have written in the past about the risks to investors in troubled companies from trustees in bankruptcy seeking recoveries for the estate on theories such as insider trading, breaches of duty and conflicts of interest. While those risks remain real, a recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals should provide some restraint on bankruptcy trustees.

On March 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of State of Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. to consider the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's ruling that a bankruptcy court may exempt certain state and local taxes in a sale approved prior to confirmation of a chapter 11 plan under § 1146(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Introduction

Section 1146(a) (formerly, and for the purposes of this case § 1146(c)) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:

In re Bryan Road, LLC, 2008 WL 376773 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida concluded on February 12, 2008, that a borrower could and did waive the protections of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay in a pre-bankruptcy workout agreement with its lender and thus lifted the stay to enable the lender to hold a foreclosure sale.