Earlier this month, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee") appointed in the Indalex bankruptcy began filing avoidance actions against various Indalex creditors. For those not familiar with the Indalex bankruptcy, Indalex filed petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on March 20, 2009. Prior to filing bankruptcy, Indalex was one of the largest aluminum extruders in the United States.

Summary

In the July/August 2010 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on an important ruling handed down by bankruptcy judge James M. Peck in the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases addressing the interaction between the Bankruptcy Code’s general setoff rules (set forth in section 553) and the Code’s safe harbors for financial contracts (found principally in sections 555, 556, and 559 through 562). In In re Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 433 B.R. 101 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which is overseeing the liquidation of the insurer in the coverage dispute, entered an order approving the insurer’s denial of coverage under an excess policy for a $20 million settlement that two individual insureds paid into a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) redress fund. The court adopted the recommendation of the referee appointed to hear the coverage dispute, who applied California law and concluded that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment following briefing and oral argument. Wiley Rein represented the insurer before the referee.

On October 21, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals (the Appeals Court), New York’s highest appellate court, addressed two appeals, and then issued an important ruling regarding the parameters of the affirmative defense of in pari delicto in suits against outside auditors, holding that the doctrines of in pari delicto and imputation are a complete bar to recovery when the corporate wrongdoer’s actions are imputed to the company.

The Doctrines of In Pari Delicto and Imputation

In 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an important ruling for creditors of insolvent corporations. It held that such creditors had standing to assert derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against directors of an insolvent corporation.1 But, as the Delaware Court of Chancery recently made clear, there is a big difference between Delaware limited liability companies (LLCs) and their corporate cousins.

In September 2010, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a reclaiming seller rights despite the claimant’s service of a timely written reclamation demand and compliance with a reclamation procedures order and section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:

Summary

In a 15 page decision signed yesterday, April 5, 2011, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that when a company receives pleadings in a bankruptcy case, even if served on their “doing business as” name, they have received proper service. Judge Sontchi’s opinion is available here.

Background

A California federal district court granted temporary injunctive relief, requiring the purchaser of a bankrupt hospital to temporarily recognize and bargain with the union that represented nurses employed by the hospital’s seller, pending the outcome of a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) hearing.

On February 11, 2011, the Hon Alan Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a 113 page opinion and order quashing the bankruptcy court's order requiring the lenders involved in TOUSA, Inc.'s Transeastern joint venture to disgorge, as fraudulent transfers under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, settlement monies that they had received on July 31, 2007 in repayment of their existing debt and to pay prejudgment interest on such monies, for a total disgorgement in excess of $480 million.