In a recent opinion,1 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York emphasized that foreign confidentiality statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence — even though the act of production may be considered a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdiction and subject the party to serious consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

Background

On July 17, 2008, in Phar-Mor, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (Nos 05-4525/4526), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Ohio's ruling that a vendor's administrative expense priority on its reclamation claim survives, even after the goods that are subject to reclamation are sold and the proceeds are used to satisfy a secured creditor's superior claim. Full text of the opinion.

Facts

The November/December 2007 issue of Insolvency Notes featured an article highlighting a Manhattan-based federal bankruptcy court's refusal to officially recognize proceedings commenced in the Cayman Islands to liquidate two Bear Stearns-managed hedge funds that collapsed in June of that year.

As a general rule, absent an express agreement to the contrary, expenses associated with administering the bankruptcy estate, including pledged assets, are not chargeable to a secured creditor’s collateral or claim but must be paid out of the estate’s unencumbered assets. Recognizing, however, that the bankruptcy estate may be called upon to bear significant expense in connection with preserving or disposing of encumbered assets as part of an overall reorganization (or liquidation) strategy, U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on July 15, 2008, that a major creditor with a seat on the debtor’s board of directors and a 10.6% equity interest was not an insider in a bankruptcy preference suit. In re U.S. Medical, Inc., 2008 WL2736658 (10th Cir. 7/15/08).

On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2008, issued a memorandum opinion in which it refused to dismiss claims of breach of fiduciary duty against directors and officers of a company who approved the sale of the company’s assets on the eve of its filing for bankruptcy protection. In issuing its opinion inIn re Bridgeport Holdings Inc., the court provided some guidelines for directors and officers, particularly during challenging economic times.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing an important issue with respect to the preservation of a debtor's causes of action in a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized debtor lacked standing to pursue certain common-law claims that were based on the pre-confirmation management of the bankruptcy estate's assets.

Earlier today (September 15, 2008), Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Holdings), the corporate parent of the fourth largest investment bank in the United States, filed for Chapter 11 protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As of writing, neither Holdings’ broker-dealer subsidiaries (including Lehman Brothers, Inc. [Lehman NY]) nor other subsidiaries (including Neuberger Berman Holdings, LLC, its asset management subsidiary) have commenced insolvency proceedings in the United States.

In In re Falcon Products, Inc., 381 B.R. 543 (8th Cir. BAP, 2008), the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) for the Eighth Circuit reversed a decision by the bankruptcy court for the District of Missouri, and held that when applying the hypothetical liquidation test to determine whether a secured creditor received potentially preferential payments, the collateral must be valued as of the petition date and not as of the payment transfer date.