REDMOND v. FIFTH THIRD BANK (October 20, 2010)

SMITH v. SIPI, LLC (July 27, 2010)

IN RE: REPOSITORY TECHNOLOGIES, INC

In a case of first impression, In re Qimonda AG, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Bankruptcy Court”) found that the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code are available to licensees of U.S. patents in a chapter 15 case even when these protections are not available under the foreign law applicable to the foreign debtor.

Two years ago, in Simon v. FIA Card Services, N.A., the Third Circuit held that alleged violations of the FDCPA resulting from conduct in a bankruptcy case were not precluded by the Bankruptcy Code.

A company attempting to reorganize its affairs in bankruptcy may seek to enjoin its creditors or other third parties from suing members of the company's senior management team during the course of the reorganization proceedings, so that the senior management members can devote their time and resources to the reorganization effort without distraction. Courts throughout the country have applied differing standards in determining when the granting of an injunction of proceedings against a non-debtor is appropriate.

The Bankruptcy Code limits the amount a landlord may recover from a bankrupt tenant for damages caused by the termination of a lease of real property. But what if the tenant trashes the landlord's property before turning over the premises? Does the damage limitation apply to the landlord's claim for the cost of cleaning up the mess?

Many participants in the multibillion-dollar distressed-debt trading markets were hoping that Federal District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin would permit expedited review of her ruling immunizing a purchaser of a claim against a debtor in bankruptcy from objections to the claim based upon the conduct of a prior holder of the claim.

On June 2, 2010, the Third Circuit overruled longstanding precedent interpreting the definition of a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code. In JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), No. 09-1563, slip op., (3d Cir. June 2, 2010) an en banc panel rejected the state law accrual theory of claims recognition established in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (Matter of M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), in favor of the more widely followed conduct test theory.

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar