In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Baldwin (In re Lemington Home for the Aged), 659 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held, among other things, that the “deepening insolvency” cause of action, which the Third Circuit previously recognized in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., 267 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2001), remains an independent cause of action under Pennsylvania law.
Background
A "roller-coaster ride of financial and economic uncertainty" would be one way to describe 2011. Limiting the script to financial and economic developments, however, would leave a big part of the story untold, as we chronicle the (not so certain) aftermath of the Great Recession. Impacting worldwide financial and economic affairs in 2011 was a seemingly endless series of groundbreaking, thought-provoking, and sometimes cataclysmic events, including:
Fallout from the Great Recession continues to figure prominently in world headlines, as governments around the globe struggle to implement or extend programs designed to jumpstart stalled economies and attempt to gauge the health of financial institutions deemed “too big to fail” or otherwise critical to long-term prospects for recovery.
The powers and protections granted to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession under the Bankruptcy Code are numerous and far-reaching.
InIn re Washington Mutual, Inc., 2011 WL 4090757 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 13, 2011), Judge Mary F. Walrath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied confirmation of the debtors’ proposed chapter 11 plan and instead referred the litigants to mediation in order to move the case toward a confirmable resolution.
On October 4, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in In re Lehman Bros. Inc., 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011), that a “triangular setoff” does not satisfy the Bankruptcy Code’s mutuality requirement and that the Bankruptcy Code’s safe-harbor provisions do not eliminate that requirement in connection with setoffs under financial contracts.
Two fundamental goals of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code are rehabilitating a debtor’s business and maximizing the value of the debtor’s estate for the benefit of various stakeholders.
U.S. federal courts have frequently been referred to as the “guardians of the Constitution.”
Highly anticipated changes to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure became effective on December 1, 2011. Rule 2019 mandates certain disclosures concerning the economic interests of creditors and interest holders in bankruptcy cases. Whether these disclosure requirements apply to ad hoc, or informal, creditor groups has been the subject of vigorous dispute in the bankruptcy courts during the last four years, with courts lining up on both sides of the divide in roughly equal numbers.
In the first circuit-level opinion on the issue, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Matson v. Alarcon, 651 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2011), held that, for purposes of establishing priority under section 507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, an employee's severance pay was "earned" entirely upon termination of employment, even though the severance amount was determined by the employee's length of service with the employer.
Section 507(a)(4)