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.

In a client advisory sent by our office a few months ago, we described a decision in the Madoff saga in which the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) closed off a potential avenue of significant recovery for the Madoff Trustee (the Trustee) and the Ponzi scheme victims by denying the Trustee standing to pursue certain claims against feeder funds – firms that sent investors’ funds to Madof

A recent bankruptcy court decision from the influential Southern District of New York permitted a debtor to reject executory contracts with midstream gathers as an exercise of sound business judgment. In In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, the court issued an advisory ruling in which it determined that certain provisions of the rejected contracts were not covenants that ran with the land, and thus could be rejected thereby relieving the debtor of a financial hardship.

Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements

The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context.  In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”

On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.

Following recall notices for its ignition switches in February 2014, General Motors, LLC (“New GM”) has been hit with at least 50 class actions and two individual suits in not less than 20 federal and two state courts asserting claims against New GM for defective vehicles and parts sold by Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that it had subject matter jurisdiction over a bankruptcy trustee’s adversary proceeding against the bankrupt entity’s insurer because the policy and policy proceeds were part of the policyholder’s bankruptcy estate.  EMS Financial Services, LLC. v. Federal Ins. Co., 2013 WL 64755 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.  Jan. 4, 2013).

On May 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) issued an opinion with significant ramifications for law firms seeking to hire former partners from bankrupt law firms. At issue was whether, under New York partnership law, the law firms that hired former partners of Coudert Brothers LLP (Coudert), a dissolved and bankrupt law partnership, must account for profits that the former Coudert partners earned while completing work on open client matters they took with them from Coudert.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has lifted the automatic stay in bankruptcy to permit D&O and E&O insurers to advance or reimburse insured directors,’ officers’ and employees’ reasonable defense costs incurred in underlying litigation arising out of the insured company’s collapse.  In re MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 11-15059 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2012)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying New York law, has held that an inadequate consideration exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for a lawsuit arising out of a debt restructuring transaction. Delta Financial Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Ins. Co. (In re Delta Financial Corp.), 2010 WL 1784054 (3d Cir. May 5, 2010).