On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).

In Wagner v. United National Insurance Co. et al. (click here to read the decision), the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed a district ruling that a regulatory exclusion in a D&O policy excluded coverage for the underlying action brought by the Director of Insurance of the State of Nebraska in his capacity as the bankruptcy liquidator of the insured, an insolvent insurance company.

Vedder Price Wins Reversal in Second Circuit Court of Appeals

With bankruptcy filings up by more than 25% in the recent past, and with the promise of many more to come in the near future, an increasing number of businesses and individuals may find themselves listed amongst the largest unsecured creditors of a debtor and with much to lose in a bankruptcy case. As one of the largest creditors, these same businesses and individuals may also find themselves being solicited to serve on “official” unsecured creditors’ committees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision that has the potential to have a major impact on how contracts that provide for physical delivery of commodities are treated under U.S. bankruptcy law.  

After a relatively brief and checkered stint in Delaware courts, it appears that the cause of action against corporate directors for “deepening insolvency” may have lost its place in Delaware corporate jurisprudence.

C.A. No. 4499-VCL (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2009) (Lamb, V.C.) (Letter opinion).

In light of the continuing economic downturn, many issuers with periodic reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are or may be faced with the prospect of reorganizing or liquidating under the United States Bankruptcy Code. These issuers must file their Exchange Act reports under the strain of the bankruptcy process, which imposes practical difficulties in completing and timely filing the reports during a time when resources are limited. Can these reporting requirements be modified so that issuers can more readily satisfy them?

On April 8, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that creates an additional hurdle for companies providing single-employer pension funds when seeking to reorganize through a bankruptcy. In general, the termination of a pension plan can give rise to a per-employee termination premium (a “Termination Premium”) owed by the company terminating the plan to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), the quasi-governmental entity that insures pension plans.

This morning, General Motors Corp. (GM) announced in a Form 8-K filing that the U.S. Treasury Department has proposed details of a reorganization plan to GM in the event that GM seeks bankruptcy protection and bankruptcy court approval for the sale of substantially all of its assets to a newly organized company (New GM) pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (363 Sale). Following the proposed 363 Sale, the U.S.