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).

Whether you are interested in purchasing assets or a going concern, bankruptcy court can be a land of opportunity. Assets may be sold by a trustee, or someone the trustee retains, in a Chapter 7 liquidation, or by a Debtor-in-Possession (a “DIP”) in a Chapter 11 reorganization case. In either case, you should expect a competitive bidding process. Going concerns are typically sold in Chapter 11 cases where the debtor determines, often after trying to reorganize, that it lacks the resources to reorganize and continue operating.

C.A. No. 4499-VCL (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2009) (Lamb, V.C.) (Letter opinion).

Troubled economic times predictably result in an escalation in bankruptcy filings. As the economy began to worsen last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a reminder that courts can—and will—penalize parties that tax an already busy bankruptcy court system with bad faith filings.

As has been reported and rumored for many weeks, the bankruptcy filing for either GM or Chrysler, or both companies, is clearly one of the potential destinations on the road ahead. For certain parts suppliers who can take advantage of guarantees under the Auto Supplier Support Program recently announced by the U.S. Treasury Department, the news of a bankruptcy filing may feel somewhat less dire, except with respect to the likely disruption and fall off of future business.  

A recent opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirms that “actual control” over a debtor is not necessary to qualify as a nonstatutory “insider” for the purpose of extending the period for preference recovery under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. See Schubert v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. (In re Winstar Communications, Inc.), 554 F.3d 382 (3rd Cir. 2009).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision that has the potential to have a major impact on how contracts that provide for physical delivery of commodities are treated under U.S. bankruptcy law.  

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued a decision addressing triangular set-off provisions, which potentially has very far-reaching implications for the enforceability of contractual set-off rights under U.S. law.