The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) requires an employer to give 60 days’ advance written notice prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. Frequently, as a company encounters financial distress—a situation that often leads to a plant closing or mass layoff— creditors exercise greater control over the entity in an attempt to recover debts owed to them. When the faltering company fails to provide the requisite WARN notice, terminated employees often assert that WARN liability should attach to such creditors. In Coppola v. Bear, Stearns & Co.

In COR Route 5 Co. v. Penn Traffic Co.1 (In re Penn Traffic Co), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a non-debtor party to an executory contract may not, by fulfilling its contractual obligations post-petition, deprive the debtor of its ability to reject an executory contract.

The ability of a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) or bankruptcy trustee to assume or reject unexpired leases or contracts that are “executory” as of the bankruptcy filing date is one of the most important entitlements created by the Bankruptcy Code. It allows a DIP to rid itself of onerous contracts and to preserve contracts that can either benefit its reorganized business or be assigned to generate value for the bankruptcy estate and/or fund distributions to creditors under a chapter 11 plan.

On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.

Two recent Federal appeals court decisions — one issued by the Fifth, the other by the Second Circuit — illustrate the dangers of careless drafting of bankruptcy and reorganization plans. In the Fifth Circuit decision, a drafting error prevented a company reorganized under Chapter 11 from suing the administrators of its property during its bankruptcy for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, thereby potentially depriving its creditors of bankruptcy assets.

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

In a case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that antidiscrimination laws may be violated when a white employee is fired for having a black spouse. In Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a federal district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Iona College (the “College”), finding that triable issues existed as to whether the College’s decision to terminate its employee, Craig Holcomb, was based at least in part upon a racially discriminatory motive.

On January 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a decision in the case of Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re: Smart World Tech., LLC) that clarifies the implications of a bankruptcy court's "pre-approval" of the terms of a professional's retention by the bankruptcy estate under Sections 327 and 328 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The “Ades” and “Berg” groups of investors (the “Ades Berg Group”), were parties who joined in the bankruptcy proceedings of the Bennett Funding Group, Inc. and related companies (the “Bennett Group”), based on claims that, among other things, the Bennett Group had defrauded them in an investment scheme. The Bennett Group was insured under a reinsurance contract issued by Sphere Drake Insurance PLC (“Sphere Drake”). A settlement was reached in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings between some groups of investors and Sphere Drake.

The Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action against several individuals and related investment entities (the Wextrust Entities) who allegedly participated in a Ponzi scheme that purportedly defrauded over 1,000 investors of approximately $255 million.