The federal government has stopped fighting court rulings that allowed an import company, which was facing steep penalty tariffs, to file bankruptcy and transfer its assets to a new business formed by the debtor's principals. The move is important to small to mid-size companies that want to rid themselves of substantial liabilities by selling assets to a new entity with identical ownership, "free and clear" under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

When a company saddled with potential environmental liabilities seeks bankruptcy protection, the goals of Chapter 11—giving the reorganized debtor a “fresh start” and fairly treating similarly situated creditors—can conflict with the goals of environmental laws, such as ensuring that the “polluter pays.” Courts have long struggled to reconcile this tension.

On April 25, 2011, the Rhode Island Superior Court (Silverstein, J.) ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the Voluntary Restructuring of Solvent Insurers Act (the “Restructuring Act”), a state statute enacted in 2002 that allows Rhode Island domestic commercial insurers and reinsurers (including those that redomesticate to Rhode Island) to enter into a commutation plan for their run-off business.

In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.

In general, substantive consolidation allows for the assets and liabilities of affiliated debtor entities to be consolidated and disbursed as if the assets were held and the liabilities were owed by a single legal entity. Unlike joint administration, which promotes procedural convenience and efficiency without affecting the substantive rights of creditors, substantive consolidation can force creditors of a solvent debtor to share in the debtors’ aggregate asset pool in parity with creditors of less solvent debtors.

Judge Walsh released an amended Opinion in the NEC Holdings Corp. case on May 18, 2011. His previous opinion had an incomplete citation of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). It shows just how serious our judges are about the Bankruptcy Code.

In an effort to keep followers of this blog fully apprised of every opinion released by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, I have linked to Judge Walsh’s newly corrected opinion here.

Summary

In an opinion published May 20, 2011, Judge Walsh held that a settlement agreement which is rejected in a bankruptcy proceeding is “Core” and will be decided by the Bankruptcy Court, even when it contains a jurisdictional clause that requires the agreement to be interpreted according to the laws of New York. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

In the fallout of recent commercial mortgage-backed securities defaults, mortgage servicers have increasingly used receivership sales for commercial real estate assets, including last month’s sale of the Davis Building in downtown Dallas.

Although it has been described as an “extraordinary remedy,” the ability of a bankruptcy court to order the substantive consolidation of related debtor-entities in bankruptcy (if circumstances so dictate) is relatively uncontroversial, as an appropriate exercise of a bankruptcy court’s broad (albeit nonstatutory) equitable powers. By contrast, considerable controversy surrounds the far less common practice of ordering consolidation of a debtor in bankruptcy with a nondebtor.

Delaware Court Addresses Important Revlon Duties in Cash/Stock Mergers