In our update of October 20, 2008, we reported on whether "negative equity" can be part of a purchase money security interest. (http://www.masudafunai.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=3093) "Negative equity" is the excess of the amount owed on a trade-in item over the market value of the item.

The court has set November 30, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) as the deadline for all creditors to file a Proof of Claim for pre-petition amounts which may be due from the debtors to creditors including those associated with open invoices entitled to priority treatment under the Bankruptcy Code for deliveries in the 20-day period immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing and the post-petition termination/rejection of executory contracts.

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) purported to eliminate the ability of chapter 11 debtors in possession to pay bonuses to management through Key Employee Retention Plans. However, in recognition of the fact that a real need often exists to incentivize key employees to remain with a reorganizing or liquidating business, bankruptcy courts have approved incentive plans providing for payments to insiders and other employees. Such plans must be carefully crafted to avoid the restrictions on retention bonuses post-BAPCPA.

Introduction

The dearth of credit available for companies in financial distress means an asset sale may be the only way to save the business and jobs. It also presents unusually attractive investment opportunities for public and private companies, private equity and hedge funds, and other investors with capital and an ability to move expeditiously.

The limited liability company is widely used as the business entity of choice for a number of reasons, including its asset protection benefits. If a creditor of an LLC member attempts to seize the LLC member's interest (or the assets of the LLC for that matter), the creditor will have to deal with the charging order roadblock.

In an area of the law that continues to be active, the federal bankruptcy court in Delaware has once again issued a detailed ruling on the actions of directors and officers leading up to a company's insolvency. Among the notable conclusions are: (1) failure to conduct due diligence before obtaining a loan may support a claim for breach of duty of care; and (2) there is no cause of action for "improvident lending" in Delaware or New Jersey. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Fedders N. Am., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. (In re Fedders N. Am., Inc.), 405 B.R.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently prohibited insurers from terminating debtors' insurance contracts based on so-called "cesser" clauses, which provided for the automatic termination of insurance coverage upon the commencement of proceedings under any bankruptcy or insolvency law. LaMonica v. N. of Eng. Protecting & Indem. Ass'n Ltd. (In re Probulk Inc.), 407 B.R. 56 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a creditor trustee could not recover claims under a Director & Officer insurance policy because of the policy's "insured v. insured" exclusion. Biltmore Assocs., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., Ad. No. 07-16036, 2009 US App. LEXIS 15322 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009).

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a long-awaited decision that many practitioners had hoped would provide insight into the permissible breadth of third-party releases and injunctions often contained in confirmed chapter 11 plans. The high court, however, narrowly resolved the issue presented in Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 129 S.Ct. 2195 (2009), and left open that ultimate question.