The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on March 25, 2009, that a bankruptcy court had improperly surcharged property in the hands of a credit bidding asset buyer with the expenses of the judicial sale. In re Skuna River Lumber, LLC, __F.3d ___, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6175 (5th Cir. 3/25/09). Explaining that the “bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to take such action,” the Fifth Circuit also vacated the district court’s improper ruling that the bankruptcy judge could enter a personal judgment against the asset buyer. Id., at *9.  

Facts

The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. 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.  

AEROSPACE  

Fairchild Corp., 60 affiliates, file Chapter 11 petition; Phoenix Group is stalking horse.  

CHEMICALS

Chemtura Corp., 26 affiliates, file Chapter 11 petition.  

April 17, 2009, will mark the three-and-one-half-year anniversary of the effective date of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which was enacted as part of the comprehensive bankruptcy reforms implemented under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

When a company files bankruptcy, it is crucial to closely monitor the bankruptcy proceedings from the beginning. After filing its petition, the debtor will likely file numerous “first day motions” intended to stabilize the Debtor’s business and facilitate an efficient case administration. These motions can severely affect the rights of unwary creditors who may find their interests primed by the actions of the debtor in the first few days of the case.

Introduction

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a nondebtor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, even if the parties had entered into pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff.1 In reaching its decision, the Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to “mutual” obligations — i.e., direct obligations between a single obligor and obligee.

As the Madoff Securities and Stanford Financial schemes have unraveled in recent months, financial industry participants have had to scrutinize closely their involvement with these entities. A key issue in each of these cases will be the extent to which the trustee (or similar representative) can “claw back” payments made as part of the Ponzi and related fraudulent schemes. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered similar facts in Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC v. Redwood Growth Partners, L.P.

Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C § 101 et seq., which incorporates most of the provisions of the United Nations’ Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency,[1] was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Chapter 15 replaced former 11 U.S.C. § 304, which was been enacted in 1978 to provide specific procedures by which a representative in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding could obtain relief in U.S. courts to facilitate the foreign bankruptcy proceeding.

Companies that terminate pension plans before filing for bankruptcy may no longer escape paying significant claims to the PBGC.

In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. Oneida, Ltd. dated April 8, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York characterizing certain “termination premiums” owed to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) pursuant to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 as contingent, pre-petition claims and thus dischargeable in bankruptcy.

On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).