In Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, the absolute priority rule requires a debtor’s creditors be paid in full before equity investors receive any value. However, existing equity investors occasionally seek to invest new money in the plan of reorganization process and argue that such investment justifies retention of equity in the reorganized company; equity which otherwise would pass to impaired creditors.

This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy.

A recent ruling in the American Airlines bankruptcy case enforcing an automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy provision serves as a reminder that the enforceability of so-called ipso facto provisions in debt instruments remains an unsettled, forum-dependent question.      

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to address “[w]hether, under §365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a license agreement—which ‘constitutes a breach of such contract,’ 11 U.S.C. §365(g)—terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” The appeal arises from a First Circuit decision, Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v.

When a debtor rejects an executory contract, Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a licensee of intellectual property to retain certain rights under the rejected contract. An important question arises, therefore, whether a particular agreement indeed involves a license. In a recent decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed the definition of a license as “a mere waiver of the right to sue by the patentee.” In re Spansion, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26131, *7 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2012) (citing De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy.  The court stated that under these circumstances “the issue of whether the policies are property of the bankruptcy estate is irrelevant.”  In re TierOne Corp., 2012 WL 4513554 (Bankr. D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2012).

Pursuant to § 1104 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the court may appoint a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. A qualified examiner, with a clearly defined mission, can drastically affect the outcome of the bankruptcy case and directly impact the return to creditors. The difference between a successful financial restructure or liquidation and an investigation yielding little value to the creditors often depends on the approach taken by the examiner and his professionals.

The recent downturn in the financial sector and related bankruptcy filings have shed light on issues involving executive compensation, particularly in chapter 11 cases. Specifically, bankrupt companies often have paid substantial bonuses to executives prior to filing for bankruptcy protection and desire to retain those executives throughout the bankruptcy process through additional bonus payments and similar schemes. These types of payments have been criticized as giveaways to management.

While investors and lenders brace for the next wave of chapter 11 filings, those who are parties to intercreditor agreements need to take stock on how their relationship with their fellow creditors and the borrower may be impacted by a bankruptcy filing by the borrower. If the borrower is in financial extremes, the primary lender who is secured by all the business assets may be unwilling or unable to extend additional credit to the troubled borrower.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has lifted the automatic stay in bankruptcy to permit D&O and E&O insurers to advance or reimburse insured directors,’ officers’ and employees’ reasonable defense costs incurred in underlying litigation arising out of the insured company’s collapse.  In re MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 11-15059 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2012)