INTRODUCTION

On June 2, 2010, the Third Circuit overruled longstanding precedent interpreting the definition of a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code. In JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), No. 09-1563, slip op., (3d Cir. June 2, 2010) an en banc panel rejected the state law accrual theory of claims recognition established in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (Matter of M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), in favor of the more widely followed conduct test theory.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on June 2, 2010, sitting en banc, overruled its own precedential holding in Avellino & Beines v. M. Frenville Co. (Frenville), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), to hold that in the context of asbestos-related tort claims, a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code arises when an individual is exposed pre-petition to a product giving rise to an injury rather than when the injury manifests itself. JED-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s), No. 1563, slip op. at 18 (3d Cir. June 2, 2010).

Merger and acquisition transactions frequently have included ongoing obligations of the parties to each other. In a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a trademark licensee in a 1991 acquisition survived an effort by the bankrupt licensor to overturn the license. (In re: Exide Technologies, U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-1872 filed June 2, 2010) The case illustrates that the time in which agreements in a merger and acquisition transaction remain at issue can be longer than would be expected.  

Spectrum Scan LLC and Joli Lofstedt, Trustee v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corporation), 438 B.R. 323 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Supreme Court of the United States declined[1] to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jaffé v.

Section 524 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) describes the effect of a discharge of a debtor, and in section 524(e), provides that a discharge of a debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity for the debtor's obligations.  Today, virtually every plan of reorganization or liquidation includes releases for officers, directors and employees of the debtor, affiliates of the debtor, debtor and committee counsel involved in the case, the members of the creditors committee and plan sponsors, among others.

For some time, there has been a split among the circuit courts as to whether the Bankruptcy Code permits non-consensual releases of non-debtor entities under a plan of reorganization.

Banks, insurance brokers, and other agents can breathe a sigh of relief as the Fourth Circuit enabled the “mere conduit” defense to survive another day. The Fourth Circuit has long recognized the proposition that an avoidable transfer cannot be recovered, pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, from a transferee who acted as a “mere conduit” for another party having the direct business relationship with the debtor.

The inclusion of third-party releases in plan of reorganization can be a particularly contentious aspect of the plan confirmation process. Debtors seeking such releases typically face opposition from affected creditors and scrutiny from bankruptcy courts that consider such releases prone to abuse.