In re Visteon Corp., No. 10-1944-cv, 2010 WL 2735715 (3d Cir. July 13, 2010), the Third Circuit held that Visteon Corporation (Visteon) could not terminate unvested retiree health and life insurance benefits during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without seeking court approval pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1114, 11 U.S.C. § 1114. The Third Circuit’s decision departs from the rulings of many other federal courts, and is in tension, if not outright conflict, with the Second Circuit’s decision in LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 945 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.

It is no surprise that there are risks inherent in doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy, including, of course, the risk that the debtor may not have the money to pay for goods sold to it on credit. Businesses can manage those risks by, for example, shortening trade credit terms, obtaining the debtor’s agreement to pay on delivery or in advance for product, or obtaining a deposit or letter of credit as security. But, once a debtor has paid for goods or services it actually received, most vendors would probably assume that the transaction cannot be challenged.

Introduction

The following is a list of some recent larger US bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.

NOVELTY

Party and novelty goods company Oriental Trading Co., Inc. has filed for Chapter 11 protection with a prepackaged plan of reorganization.

OIL

The Bankruptcy Code provides several protections for parties that have supplied goods or services to a debtor on credit prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy petition date.

Good v RMR Investments, Inc, 428 BR 249 (ED Texas, March 31, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

A secured creditor in a chapter 11 case objected to the confirmation of the reorganization plan of the debtor, arguing that the proper “cramdown” interest rate (court-modified rate) was the pre-petition contractual default rate, rather than the significantly lower cramdown rate. After the debtor appealed, the District Court affirmed, holding that utilizing the contract rate of interest was appropriate because the debtor was solvent.

In re Goody’s Family Clothing, Inc- F3d – 2010 WL 2671929 (3d Cir June 29, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

JELD-WEN, Inc v Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc), (3d Cir No 09-1563, June 2, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Spansion, Inc, 426 BR 114 (Bankr Del April 1, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Exide Technologies, 607 F3d 957 (3rd Cir June 1, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT