It has long been understood by buyers of assets of distressed companies that once a sale is authorized pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, the buyer is absolved of any liabilities which may have encumbered the assets of the previous owner, including causes of actions against them. However, a recent decision from the influential United States District Court for the Southern District of New York saddles buyers with the burden of unknown potential future claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on a case of farreaching importance for any party affected by a Chapter 11 plan in a business bankruptcy case. At stake is the longstanding expectation of secured lenders that they'll either be repaid or permitted to take their collateral by means of a credit bid; in other words, paying for the collateral with their lien.

The proliferation of limited recourse financings popularized in the commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) loan market through the financial innovation of loan securitization may be in jeopardy following the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Wells Fargo, N.A. vs. Cherryland Mall Limited Partnership.¹   If the Michigan decision is widely followed, an array of unanticipated consequences may arise that could have profound effects on the debt capital markets generally and on single purpose entity (SPE) borrowers in particular.

The last several years have seen bankruptcy filings from prominent retail chains such as Borders, Circuit City, Blockbuster, Movie Gallery and Ritz Camera. Many of these cases have resulted in liquidation. For commercial landlords, retail bankruptcy cases present a number of potentially damaging issues, including nonpayment of rent, assignment of the lease to an unworthy tenant, vacant space in an otherwise popular location and going-out-of business sales.

The absolute priority rule of Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code is a fundamental creditor protection in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. In general terms, the rule provides that if a class of unsecured creditors rejects a debtor’s reorganization plan and is not paid in full, junior creditors and equity interestholders may not receive or retain any property under the plan. The rule thus implements the general state-law principle that creditors are entitled to payment before shareholders, unless creditors agree to a different result.

Oftentimes in bankruptcy, when one entity files for bankruptcy relief, the subsidiaries or affiliates also file. Sometimes these entities are "substantively consolidated" for bankruptcy purposes, thus combining the assets and liabilities into a single pool and attributing them to a single entity. Substantive consolidation has been permitted when, for example, debtors have abused corporate formalities or creditors have treated the separate entities as a single economic unit and their affairs were hopelessly entangled.

In Industrial Enterprises of America v. Burtis (In re Pitt Penn Holding Co., Inc.), 2012 WL 204095 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan.

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.

Secured lenders have had long-held expectations of certain protections in the event the borrower files for bankruptcy.

Recently, in In re Longview Aluminum, LLC,1 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that members of a limited liability company (“LLC”) are insiders for preferential transfer purposes under the Bankruptcy Code.