In light of the continued favorable business climate and ample liquidity in the U.S., the falloff in business bankruptcy filings in 2006 should come as no big surprise. Unlike 2005, which added three new stars to the all-time hit parade of chapter 11 “mega” cases, 2006 saw no new additions to the Top 10 list for public-company chapter 11 filings. Overall, the number of business bankruptcy filings dropped 20 percent in fiscal year 2006, the fifth straight year a decline was reported, according to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in October of 2006.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP | gtlaw.com 1 Sixth Annual American College of Bankruptcy Seventh Circuit Education Committee Seminar Session: Exploring the Outer Limits of the Avoiding Powers September 11, 2015 IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law 565 West Adams Street Chicago, IL Moderator: Nancy A.

In a closely watched case against Motorola, Inc. arising out of the Iridium chapter 11 case, Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has adopted a market approach to determining prepetition solvency, finding “insufficient cause to set aside the verdict of solvency and capital adequacy already given to Iridium by the public markets.” In his 111-page opinion1 Judge Peck agreed with the Third Circuit’s approach in VFB LLC v.

In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found that the Statutory Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of Iridium, a failed Motorola spin-off venture, was unable to prove that Iridium was insolvent or had unreasonably small capital during the four-year period prior to commencement of its bankruptcy case.

The Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed, without opinion, a ruling by a lower court that ‘deepening insolvency’ is not a cause of action under Delaware law. Trenwick America Litig. Trust v. Billett, 931 A.2d 438 (Del. 2007).

The ruling appears to be the strongest nail yet in the coffin of so-called “deepening insolvency” actions.

A federal bankruptcy court in New York has concluded that the market price of a company’s stock is the most reliable valuation to determine whether disputed transfers were avoidable. In re Iridium Operating LLC (Statutory Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Iridium v. Motorola, Inc.), 373 B.R. 283 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2007).

In previous Alerts, we have addressed the complexities of claims in bankruptcy. Likewise, trading in claims and securities can present challenges. Difficulties have arisen in large Chapter 11 reorganizations as constituencies engaged in the Chapter 11 process, who are major players in the case, seek to trade in securities relating to that case. This Alert explores the impact that some trading activities may have on potential recoveries in the bankruptcy and the help (and impact) of the Internal Revenue Code.

In a tumultuous year that is likely to be remembered for its extreme market volatility, skyrocketing commodity prices (e.g., crude oil hovering at $100 per barrel), a slumping housing market, the weakest U.S. dollar in decades versus major currencies, a ballooning trade deficit with significant overseas trading partners such as China, Japan, and the EU , and an unprecedented proliferation of giant private equity deals that quickly fizzled when the subprime mortgage meltdown made inexpensive corporate credit nearly impossible to come by, 2007 was anything but mundane.

Can market capitalization be used to evidence the solvency of bankrupt debtors? A recent bankruptcy case out of the District of Delaware suggests that it can.1

On April 9, 2008, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued its opinion in Miller v. McDonald, et al., 2008 WL 1002035 (Bkrtcy.D.Del.), in which it held that the general counsel of a public company had a duty to implement a system that would provide reasonable monitoring to prevent corporate wrongdoing. The court found that the general counsel’s duty arose from two sources. First, Delaware law imposes a duty on directors and senior officers to implement a system that would provide reasonable monitoring of corporate activity.