On August 9, 2006, Judge Burton R. Lifland of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Final Order Establishing Procedures for Trading in Claims and Equity Securities of Dana Corporation (the “Dana NOL Trading Order”). The Dana NOL Trading Order is materially different from NOL trading orders that have been approved by other bankruptcy courts and, from the perspective of investors in claims and distressed securities, represents a material improvement.

Treatment of NOLs in Business Reorganizations

On August 27, 2007, United States District Judge Shira Scheindlin held that Springfield Associates, an innocent transferee of a claim from Citigroup against Enron, was not subject to certain counterclaims and defenses so long as Springfield was a “purchaser” and not an “assignee” of the claim. See In re Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs. L.L.C., No. 07 Civ. 1957, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2007).

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.

Recently, in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the circuit courts of appeal by overruling the Ninth Circuit’s Fobian rule, which dictated that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues “peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.” In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Fobian rule’s limitations on attorneys’ fees find no support in either section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code or elsewhere.

The hurdles for KERP programs have been raised too high, causing debtors to lose critical personnel to the detriment of post-petition operations, say Frost Brown Todd’s Ronald Gold and Doug Lutz in our series of chats with high-profile bankruptcy lawyers.

Q. What’s the most challenging bankruptcy you’ve worked on, and why?

The buyer of a Chapter 11 debtor's coal supply contract was not liable for the seller's obligations to the sales agent who secured the contract for the debtor-seller, according to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Al Perry Enterprises, Inc. v. Appalachian Fuels, LLC, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22808 (6th Cir. Sept. 27, 2007). As the court explained, the buyer could not be liable to the sales agent "absent an express assumption of the [debtor's prior] obligations." Id. at *17.

Background

An employee of a car care business accused the co-owner's business partner of sexually harassing her. Incredibly (and as an example of what not to do about a sexual harassment claim), the co-owner told her to stop flirting with his partner and asked her to sign a memo that "anything that happened was of a consensual nature." The employee was told she would be fired if she did not sign the memo. She refused to sign and did not return to work.

With the recent decline in housing and real estate generally, companies in the homebuilding and construction markets face serious challenges. Some projects have already been forced into Chapter 11 and others will almost certainly require either a bankruptcy filing or out-of-court restructure. In the event a bankruptcy is filed, vendors, contractors, subcontractors and other interested parties should be aware of the impact of important bankruptcy code provisions on their relationship with troubled companies.

Automatic Stay

In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found that the Statutory Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of Iridium, a failed Motorola spin-off venture, was unable to prove that Iridium was insolvent or had unreasonably small capital during the four-year period prior to commencement of its bankruptcy case.

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.