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.

In a decision that will be of great interest to the creditor community, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, on November 5, 2009, that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys’ fees that was authorized under a valid prepetition contract. The case, Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland,1 extends and clarifies the US Supreme Court’s March 2007 decision in the Travelers case,2 which opened the door for such a ruling.

On November 13, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the Stanford securities fraud case that the appointed receiver lacked authority to “claw back” principal and interest proceeds distributed to innocent investors/creditors because they have a legitimate ownership interest in the proceeds held in the accounts. This precedent has important implications for this and other ongoing “Ponzi” scheme cases.

The Stanford Case: Alleged Multi-Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme

After more than a decade of rising real estate values, the tide has turned against commercial and development real estate, prompting major builders and developers to commence Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) in 2005, many Chapter 11 cases that revolve around real estate will fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of single asset real estate (SARE) cases and are thus subject to special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.1 As a result, it is now time to think about SARE.

In an Opinion issued on December 2, 2009 in the Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu") Chapter 11 case, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that Bankruptcy Rule 2019 clearly applies to "ad hoc committees," regardless of how they might try to disclaim collective action. As a result, the members of an informal group of WaMu bondholders must now provide detailed information concerning their holdings, including a history of when they bought and sold their bonds and the prices paid. Perhaps more importantly, the Opinion packs a second bombshell.

For participants in the over-the-counter ("OTC") derivatives markets, perhaps the most significant recent US legal decision interpreting counterparty rights upon a bankruptcy event of default was the September 15, 2009 bench ruling in the US Lehman Brothers chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Case No. 08-13555 et seq. (JMP)(jointly administered) ("Bankruptcy Case").

Publishing Company in Pleasantville, New York In re Reader’s Digest Sales and Services, Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) Case no. 09-09548

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.

In a recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Mary Walrath has required that members of an informal committee of noteholders comply with expansive disclosure requirements beyond the standard established for official committees. In a written opinion issued on December 2, 2009 in the case of In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Case No. 08-12229 (MFW), Judge Walrath granted a motion to require an informal group of noteholders to comply with Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

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.