The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on Nov. 3, 2009, that a district court had improperly dismissed, on mootness grounds, an appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order confirming a reorganization plan. According to the Tenth Circuit, the appeal was reviewable because reversal of the plan confirmation order (1) would not unduly affect innocent third parties, and (2) would not undo any complex transactions.
In a decision that will be of great interest to the creditor community, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, on November 5, 2009, that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys’ fees that was authorized under a valid prepetition contract. The case, Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland,1 extends and clarifies the US Supreme Court’s March 2007 decision in the Travelers case,2 which opened the door for such a ruling.
In a recent holding that a creditor may collect, on an unsecured basis, post-petition attorneys’ fees under an otherwise enforceable pre-petition contract, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals followed a similar ruling by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, adding to a conflict among the circuits on this issue.
- In re TOUSA, Inc., 408 B.R. 913 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009). Prepetition lenders could not assert third-party claims against the debtors for breach of contract based on loan document representation that debtor borrowers, on a consolidated basis, would be solvent after the financing transaction because such claims did not depend on the outcome of the fraudulent transfer claims of the creditors, which asserted that individual debtor subsidiaries were insolvent.
- In re Metaldyne Corp., 409 B.R. 671 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision on a question of first impression before the court: whether section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to administrative claims arising under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. See, generally, ASM Capital, L.P. v. Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.), 582 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2009).
The Supreme Court declines to review a circuit court decision in Oneida Ltd., which held that a debtor cannot discharge in bankruptcy, as a prepetition claim, premiums it owes to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in connection with the termination of a pension plan.
Introduction
Introduction
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled recently on the validity of “gift plans” – plans of reorganization under which a senior creditor “gifts” assets to a junior creditor or equity holder.1 In In re Journal Register Co.,2 Bankruptcy Judge Alan L. Gropper approved a plan in which secured lenders gifted a portion of their recovery to certain trade creditors, and detailed some of the important limitations on gift plans.
Evolution of the Gift Plan Doctrine
The Bankruptcy Court has now provided its long-awaited answer as to the scope of the Securities Investors Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) liability for investor accounts with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”). The ruling in favor of Irving Picard, the trustee responsible for the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) liquidation of Madoff, precludes recovery for many of the victims of Bernard Madoff’s infamous ponzi scheme and leaves the scope of the SIPC protection uncertain in future cases.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held on June 23, 2011, that junior creditors could receive a distribution over the objection of senior creditors who claimed they were entitled to post-petition interest under contractual subordination provisions. In re Bank of New England Corporation, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2476470 (1st Cir. June 23, 2011). In reaching its decision, based on the bankruptcy court's fact findings, the court stressed "that the parties did not intend to subordinate the Junior Noteholders to post-petition interest."Id. at *5.
Introduction