In Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Moran Towing Corp. (In re Bethlehem Steel Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that preferential transfer claims were not arbitrable. The Court reasoned that because the avoidance powers did not belong to the debtor, but rather were creditor claims that could only be brought by a trustee or debtor-in-possession, they were not subject to the arbitration clauses in contracts to which the creditors were not parties.

The Dispute and the Arbitration Clauses

A recent decision of New York’s highest court potentially strengthens the ability of lenders to bring suits against third parties for participation in a borrower’s breach of single purpose entity/bankruptcy remote loan document covenants.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Merit, unanimously ruling that a buyout transaction between private parties did not qualify for “safe harbor” protection under Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), on the basis that a “financial institution” acted as an intermediary in the overarching transaction.

In re Residential Capital, LLC, 508 B.R. 851 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –

An oversecured creditor claimed post-petition interest at the contract default rate. The debtors and the post-confirmation liquidating trust objected, arguing that the lender should be limited to the non-default rate.

N. Providence, LLC v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.),510 B.R. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) –

Highland Capital Mgmt. L.P. v. UBS Securities, LLC (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.), 505 B.R. 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) –

A hedge fund sued an investment bank for tortious interference based on its exclusion from participation in exit financing for a debtor. The bankruptcy court granted the investment banker’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the hedge fund appealed.

In re Cook, 481 B.R. 265 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2012) –

In re 785 Partners LLC, 470 B.R. 126 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. 2012) –

Androse Assoc. of Allaire, LLC v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.), 472 B.R. 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) –

GII Industries, Inc. v. New York Dep’t of Transp. 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3663 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011)  

The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York considered the appropriate method for calculating a contractor’s inefficiency damages and whether the contractor was entitled to prejudgment interest in connection with a highway reconstruction project. The Court held that the total cost method was the appropriate manner by which to calculate damages and that the contractor was entitled to prejudgment interest running from the date final payment was due.