The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently dismissed a corporate debtor’s attempt to subordinate its former corporate parent’s contract damage claim on the ground that it was a securities fraud claim. CIT Group Inc. v. Tyco Int’l., Inc. (In re CIT Group Inc.), 2012 WL 3854887 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2012), affirming 460 B.R. 633 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Reorganization or debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing has become an increasing source of litigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on Nov. 3, 2009, that a district court had improperly dismissed, on mootness grounds, an appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order confirming a reorganization plan. According to the Tenth Circuit, the appeal was reviewable because reversal of the plan confirmation order (1) would not unduly affect innocent third parties, and (2) would not undo any complex transactions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on July 15, 2008, that a major creditor with a seat on the debtor’s board of directors and a 10.6% equity interest was not an insider in a bankruptcy preference suit. In re U.S. Medical, Inc., 2008 WL2736658 (10th Cir. 7/15/08).

The Supreme Court unanimously held on March 20, 2007, that an unsecured lender could recover contractbased legal fees “incurred in [post-bankruptcy] litigation” on “issues of bankruptcy law.” Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., __ U.S. __ (March 20, 2007). Op., at 1, 3. In doing so, the court vacated a summary ruling by the Ninth Circuit last year. 167 Fed. Appx. 593 (9th Cir. 2006) (held, “attorney fees… not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’“), citing In re Fobian, 951 F.2d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.

Claims held by employees of a Chapter 11 debtor based on “restricted stock units (‘RSUs’) … must be subordinated [under Bankruptcy Code § 510(b)] to the claims of general creditors because … (i) RSUs are securities, (ii) the claimants acquired them in a purchase, and (iii) the claims for damages arise from those purchases or the asserted rescissions thereof,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 4, 2017. In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7920, *6 (2d Cir. May 4, 2017).

So-called “red flags” were not “sufficient to impose a duty on [a gambling casino (‘Casino’)] to investigate” a Chapter 11 debtor’s pre-bankruptcy fraudulent transfers to its insiders who gambled at the Casino, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Oct. 13, 2015. In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., 2015 WL 5936354, at *6 (7th Cir. Oct. 13, 2015).

The United States Supreme Court, on July 1, 2014, granted a petition for certiorari in an important Seventh Circuit case limiting the power of bankruptcy courts to decide property disputes. Wellness International Network, Ltd. et al. v. Sharif, 727 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2013). The Seventh Circuit had held last year that the bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to determine whether purported trust assets were property of the debtor’s estate.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held on Aug. 3, 2012, that equitable considerations could not prevent a creditor's recouping amounts owed to it by a chapter 7 debtor. Terry v. Standard Ins. Co. (In re Terry), 2012 WL 3139364, *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2012). Reversing the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), the Eighth Circuit explained that "once a party meets the same-transaction test . . . a court should not impose an additional 'balancing of the equities' requirement" on the doctrine of recoupment. Id.

On Feb. 18, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) held that (i) an assignment of unsecured contract claims from AT&T to ReGen Capital I, Inc. (“ReGen”) was broad enough to include right to receive “cure” payments in the event the debtor, UAL Corporation (“United”), assumed the underlying executory contracts, but (ii) ReGen could not successfully assert a “cure” claim because United had not assumed the executory contracts, even though United’s confirmed plan of reorganization included them on a list of assumed contracts. ReGen Capital I, Inc. v. UAL Corp.