A company facing a rash of tort lawsuits may try to use a dormant subsidiary’s bankruptcy as a tool to limit its exposure. That’s what Pfizer tried to do, and a New York bankruptcy judge sent them packing. This case is a warning to corporate parents that courts will not allow them to manipulate the process to use the bankruptcies of subsidiaries to further their own agendas. If you’re a creditor you can use this case as ammunition in reorganization disputes to show bad faith. Read on for a quick summary of what happened in the Pfizer case, and what you can learn from it.  

On July 13, 2010, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously held that auto-parts supplier Visteon Corporation could not terminate health and life insurance benefits for approximately 2,100 retirees during its chapter 11 bankruptcy unless Visteon followed the specific requirements laid out in section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code, even if Visteon would have had the unilateral right to terminate these benefits outside bankruptcy.1 The Court found that a debtor may terminate any retiree benefits in bankruptcy only if,inter alia, the debt

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a nonresident parent company may be subject to suit in Minnesota for damages claims against its insolvent Minnesota subsidiary company. The decision would appear to defeat a primary reason for forming a separate subsidiary business entity: the protection of related entities and their assets from potential liability arising from the business operations of the subsidiary.

The chapter 11 case of DBSD North America, Inc. (“DBSD”), f/k/a ICO North America, has been marked by aggressive tactics and extreme positions from its commencement. DBSD, a non-operating satellite communications company, and its second lien noteholders made clear their intent to cram down a plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) on DBSD’s first lien lenders.

In a much-followed case given the recent publicity surrounding collapsed Ponzi schemes, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 17, 2010 reversed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court from the Southern District of New York that had broadened the scope of those facts and circumstances that may trigger inquiry notice under the "good faith" defense to a fraudulent conveyance claim. In re Bayou Group, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99590 (S.D.N.Y. September 17, 2010).

A recent bankruptcy court decision, which approved procedures governing upcoming claw back litigation, paves the way for the start of long-feared claw back litigation against investor victims of the Madoff fraud. The claw back suits will seek to recover funds withdrawn from Madoff accounts prior to the revelation of the scheme. Many had hoped that SIPC Trustee Irving Picard might refrain from bringing mass law suits against these so-called "net winners" because of the immense harm such suits will harm to people who have already suffered enormously from the fraud.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Dec. 6, 2010, summarily affirmed a bankruptcy court’s designation of a secured lender’s vote on a reorganization plan in a two-page order, effectively enabling the debtor to cram down the lender’s claim. In re DBSD North America, Inc., __ F.3d__, 2010 WL 4925878 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2010).1 As a result, the lender who bought all of the debtor’s senior first-lien secured debt at par will be paid only interest over a period of four years before its loan matures. SeeIn re DBSD North America, Inc., 419 B.R. 179, 207-08 (Bankr.

Introduction

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order this week upholding the aggressively unfavorable treatment of a senior secured creditor under the reorganization plan (the “Plan”) of DBSD North America, f/k/a ICO North America (“DBSD”).

A recent decision may provide important ammunition to Madoff investors against "clawback" actions brought by the SIPC Trustee overseeing the Madoff bankruptcy estate (the "Madoff Trustee").1 The Madoff Trustee alleges that investors who withdrew monies from their accounts fraudulently transferred estate property under state and federal law, regardless of whether they lost more than they withdrew.