On December 29, 2010, the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer denied a motion by Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP ("Plaintiff") to remand its claims against Countrywide and others to state court. Judge Pfaelzer concluded that the case was sufficiently related to a bankruptcy case to confer federal jurisdiction in light of contractual indemnification obligations of a bankrupt originator, American Home Mortgage Corp., to Countrywide. The Court also concluded that there were no equitable grounds meriting remand.

The current "Great Recession," which began in late 2007 with a maelstrom in the debt capital markets, has necessitated a rethinking of the federal income tax rules governing debt restructurings. The harsh rules2 promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in reaction to the 1991 taxpayer-favorable decision in Cottage Savings v. Commissioner,3 have been inhibiting restructurings. Instead, rules that did not trigger adverse tax results have been needed to induce lenders and borrowers to restructure obligations that can no longer be paid according to their terms.

Published in The Deal, January 5, 2011

The recent decision in Bank of America, NA v. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et. al.), No. 08-13555, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01753, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3867 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010) has shone a 10,000-watt spotlight onto the scope of common law set-off in New York.

Can a debtor seeking debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing under Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code grant a lender a lien on a leasehold interest in the face of an express anti-hypothecation provision in the underlying lease?

In Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., --- S.Ct. ----, 2011 WL 66438 (U.S. 2011), the United States Supreme Court took up the question of whether a Chapter 13 debtor who owns his or her vehicle outright (“free and clear”) may claim an allowance for car ownership costs and thereby reduce the amount that he or she will repay creditors. In her first opinion, Justice Kagan answered simply—no. The Ransom opinion has been seen as a victory for not only credit card companies like the one involved but other creditors, as well.

The United States Bankruptcy Court recently denied confirmation of a bankruptcy plan even though it found that the plan's global settlement was "fair and reasonable."1 Why? Because the plan's releases were too broad and "unreasonable" for many of the constituents. The case provides a pointed lesson to creditors and debtors alike — pay attention to the releases; overdoing it may sink the whole ship.

Granite Reinsurance Company won an award for unpaid premiums from Acceptance Insurance Company (in rehabilitation) in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The unpaid premiums amounted to $9 million on a $15 million dollar policy that was purchased to cover Acceptance for five years. The parties had agreed to a $3 million per year premium payment schedule, due at the beginning of each of the five years covered under the reinsurance agreement. However, a dispute arose as to the calculation of pre-judgment interest on the award.

As we reported earlier in the week, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") has begun filing lawsuits against the directors and officers of banks that it now holds in receivership . The lawsuits are consistent with previous public statements in which the FDIC committed to try to recover, from the directors and officers of these failed banks, some of the $2.5 billion lost to bad loans in recent years.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a creditor of a bankrupt corporation may assert alter ego claims against the corporation’s sole shareholders. The California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District not only supports the Ninth Circuit’s decision but has recently taken it one step further, holding that alter ego allegations are not even subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Rea v. Federated Investors, 2010 WL 5094250 (3d Cir., December 15, 2010) – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a provision in the Bankruptcy Code which prohibits private employers from “terminat[ing] the employment of, or discriminat[ing] with respect to employment” against an individual who had previously declared bankruptcy, doesnot create a cause of action against a private employer who declines to hire based upon an applicant’s previously declared bankruptcy. Analyzing the bankruptcy provision at issue, 11 U.S.C.