As previously reported (3/17/08 post), this case involves the interpretation of the terms of a reinsurance contract and the duties of the parties under that contract. In the most recent development, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming in part, and reversing in part, a prior decision of the bankruptcy court regarding the reinsurance contract at issue.

Two US federal appeals courts recently held that a provision of the Bankruptcy Code can protect private company sellers in the event that the company they sold later goes bankrupt and a fraudulent transfer claim is brought against them to recover the sale proceeds. The courts found that this protection applies when a financial institution is used to handle the transfer of consideration in the sale.

In a decision with potentially broad implications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently determined that payments made to former shareholders of a privately held company in a leveraged buyout transaction are protected as "settlement payments" pursuant to section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on Nov. 5, 2009, that a creditor was entitled to its post-bankruptcy legal fees incurred on a pre-bankruptcy indemnity agreement. Ogle v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., __F.3d __, No. 09-0691-bk, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24329 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2009). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit explained that the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “interposes no bar . . . to recovery.” Id. at *8-9 (citing Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S.

Whether or not a bankrupt tenant is required to pay post-petition rent, and when that rent needs to be paid, are issues of significant importance to both debtors and landlords. A recent decision by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit (the jurisdiction that encompasses Minnesota) adds yet another dimension to the spectrum of cases addressing the payment of "stub" rent by a bankrupt tenant under a non-residential lease of real property and at the same time highlights the importance of working with legal counsel whenever a tenant is in financial distress.

In a recent holding that a creditor may collect, on an unsecured basis, post-petition attorneys’ fees under an otherwise enforceable pre-petition contract, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals followed a similar ruling by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, adding to a conflict among the circuits on this issue.

No. 09-6024 (8th Cir. BAP 11/30/09)

 No. 09-6063 (8th Cir. BAP 11/24/09)

No. 08-6038 (8th Cir. BAP 11/16/09)

On January 11th, the Eighth Circuit held that a bankruptcy court properly awarded summary judgment to the bankruptcy trustee in a suit seeking to avoid as a preferential transfer, the pre-petition transfer of a mortgage from the debtor to the bank. Because the bank failed to record the home mortgage prior to the borrower's filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Section 547(e)(2)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code deemed the transfer of the mortgage to have occurred immediately before the debtor filed his bankruptcy petition.