In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements:

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to hear a chapter 11 debtor's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, which the debtor filed after its chapter 11 plan had been confirmed and substantially consummated. Valley Historic Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, No. 06-1571,___ F.3d ___, WL 1439734 (4th Cir. May 17, 2007). This decision delineates the limits of bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over claims filed by the debtor after plan confirmation.

Background

The Fourth Circuit, on June 15, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a Chapter 11 reorganization petition filed by a tenant debtor in a commercial lease dispute. Maryland Port Administration v. Premier Automotive Services, Incorporated (In re Premier Automotive Services, Incorporated), ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1721951 (4th Cir. 6/15/07).

In re Adelphia Communications Corp.,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that neither a creditor’s aggressive litigation tactics resulting in the creditor’s prospective receipt under a proposed plan of special consideration for voting in favor of the plan, which special consideration other members of the same class that voted against the plan would not obtain, nor the creditor’s ownership of claims in several debtors, in a multi-debtor Chapter 11 case, was a sufficient basis for the “draconian sanction” of disallowing such creditor’s votes

How to Keep Follow-On Investments from Getting Squeezed

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, applying Colorado law, has denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment and granted in part motions for partial summary judgment by the policyholder's former CEO and a bankruptcy trustee as assignee of the policyholder's former directors. Genesis Ins. Co. v. Crowley, 2007 WL 1832039 (D. Colo. June 25, 2007).

The strategic importance of classifying claims and interests under a chapter 11 plan is sometimes an invitation for creative machinations designed to muster adequate support for confirmation of the plan. Although the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally states that only “substantially similar” claims or interests can be classified together, it neither defines “substantial similarity” nor requires that all claims or interests fitting the description be classified together.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that a debtor’s interest in its liquor license constitutes property of the estate pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The First Circuit further held that the debtor’s rejection of its lease ended the debtor’s contractual right to continued use of its liquor license, and left the landlord with ordinary remedies for breach of contract—such as specific performance to obtain recovery of the license. See In re Ground Round, Inc. (Abboud v. Ground Round), 482 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a lender liability class action brought by employees of a defunct originator and seller of mortgages and home equity loans. 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20791 (2d Cir. August 30, 2007). Agreeing with the district court, the Second Circuit held that the lender was not an "employer" within the meaning of the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), and thus was not liable to the employees for the sudden loss of their jobs. Id., at *2.