On February 7, 2011, in In re DBSD North America, Inc.,1 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its opinion joining the Third Circuit in condemning socalled “gifting plans,” thus deepening the perceived circuit split with the First Circuit which has been interpreted as approving of gifting plans. In so doing, the Second Circuit relied on the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. 203 N. LaSalle St. P’ship2 and Norwest Bank Worthington v.

So what do railroad barons, second lien lenders and satellites have in common? Strangely, the derailment of the gifting doctrine for cram-down plans, at least, in the Second Circuit. In an Opinion filed on February 7, 2011, the Second Circuit issued what amounted to a teaser for bankruptcy professionals. It started with a decision by Bankruptcy Judge Gerber of the Southern District of New York to confirm a Chapter 11 plan that included a “gift” from the second lien lenders to equity, even though unsecured creditors were not being paid in full.

In an apparent case of first impression in Massachusetts, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that an allonge must be physically affixed to the original promissory note to be effective.

Yes, but only if the government declines to intervene in the action. United States ex rel. Kolbeck v. Point Blank Solutions, Inc., 1:08-cv-1187 (E.D. Va.), recently addressed this issue.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals1 recently issued an opinion of importance in bankruptcy cases involving commercial real estate as the debtor’s only asset, such as a shopping center or office building.

On February 1, 2011, AES Thames, LLC ("AES" or "Debtor") filed petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. According to the Declaration of AES's President in Support of First Day Motions (the "Declaration"), AES owns and operates a coal-fired power plant in Montville, Connecticut.

On February 7, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a highly significant opinion in two consolidated appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of a chapter 11 plan of reorganization for DBSD North America and its subsidiaries (DBSD).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey has issued a published opinion authorizing a trustee’s transfer of structured settlement payments pursuant to the New Jersey Structured Settlement Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-63, et seq. (NJ SSPA). In In Re Jackus, 2011 WL 118216 (Bankr. N.J. Jan. 14, 2011), the Bankruptcy Court held that, inter alia, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to authorize the transfer under the NJ SSPA, and the transfer was in the “best interest” of the bankruptcy estate and its creditors.

The Bankruptcy Code sets forth the relative priority of claims against a debtor and the waterfall in which such claims are typically paid. In order for a court to confirm a plan over a dissenting class of creditors – what is commonly called a “cram-down” – the Bankruptcy Code demands thateither (i) the dissenting class receives the full value of its claim, or (ii) no classes junior to that class receive any property under the plan on account of their junior claims or interests. This is known as the “absolute priority rule.”

In Rea v. Federal Investors (10-1440), the Third Circuit held that no private cause of action exists against a private employer that refused to hire an applicant because the applicant previously filed for bankruptcy. The appellant applied to an investment firm and, after an interview, the firm was seemingly poised to hire him. The investment firm, however, denied him employment because it discovered he filed bankruptcy seven years earlier. The appellant filed suit, claiming the firm violated federal law by discriminating against him on account of his prior bankruptcy.