“Give ups” by senior classes of creditors to achieve confirmation of a plan have become an increasingly common feature of the chapter 11 process, as stakeholders strive to avoid disputes that can prolong the bankruptcy case and drain estate assets by driving up administrative costs.

On April 18, 2007, in Fla. Dep’t. of Rev. v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. (In re Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the stamp tax exemption of 11 USC § 1146(c)2 may apply to transfers of assets that were necessary to the consummation of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization and were made prior to confirmation of the plan. In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit declined to follow decisions of the Third and Fourth Circuits to the contrary and thus created a split among the circuits on this issue.

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 ability to sell assets during the course of a chapter 11 case without incurring transfer taxes customarily levied on such transactions outside of bankruptcy often figures prominently in a potential debtor’s strategic bankruptcy planning. However, the circumstances under which a sale and related transactions (e.g., recording of mortgages) qualify for the tax exemption have been a focal point of dispute for many courts, including no less than four circuit courts of appeal.

In a case involving a bankruptcy reorganization in which a trustee in bankruptcy was given the right to pursue claims of misappropriation or infringement (but not ownership of the bankrupt’s intellectual property), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court finding that the no trustee had standing to bring suit. Morrow, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case Nos. 06-1512, -1518, -1537 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 19, 2007 (Moore, J.; Prost, J., dissenting).

Recently, a New York state court gave the New York Liquidation Bureau ("NYLB") permission to notify more than 300,000 creditors of Union Indemnity Insurance Company (“Union Indemnity”) that it plans to make the first distribution from the insolvent property casualty insurer's estate. See In Re Union Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 41292/85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 10, 2007).

In an adversary proceeding brought by a liquidating company to determine the availability of coverage under the debtor's insurance policies, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware has held that the insolvency of an underlying insurer did not affect an excess carrier's obligation for claims within its own layer of coverage. In re Integrated Health Services, Inc., 2007 WL 2687593 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2007). Although the adversary proceeding was initially filed in bankruptcy court, it was consensually withdrawn to the district court.

The Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed, without opinion, a ruling by a lower court that ‘deepening insolvency’ is not a cause of action under Delaware law. Trenwick America Litig. Trust v. Billett, 931 A.2d 438 (Del. 2007).

The ruling appears to be the strongest nail yet in the coffin of so-called “deepening insolvency” actions.

Can a United States bankruptcy court deny recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding even if no one opposes such recognition? In a recent decision, Judge Burton Lifland, a highly respected bankruptcy judge and one of the authors of Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, says yes.

Liquidators of Bear Stearns Funds Seek Relief under Chapter 15

In a matter of first impression under New Jersey law that potentially impacts both the reinsurance and insurance industry and policyholders of insolvent insurance companies, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the appellate division's ruling that the Fourth Amended Final Dividend Plan (the "FDP") proposed by the Liquidator for Integrity Insurance Company ("Integrity") should not be approved because it unlawfully allowed incurred but not reported (“IBNR”) claims to share in the insolvent insurer's estate. See In the Matter of the Liquidation of Integrity Ins.