The term “frenemy” – a combination of the words friend and enemy – has emerged from modern vernacular to describe someone who is simultaneously a partner and an adversary. The term is perhaps perfectly emblematic of the restructuring process where various constituents make and break alliances in an effort to steer the restructuring process. In so doing, the lines between friend and enemy are often blurred or altered during the course of the restructuring.

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in Stern v. Marshall (June 23, 2011) that a bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to render final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s compulsory counterclaim against a creditor arising under common law, despite a statutory grant of jurisdiction.

It is already relatively settled that an insider who has personally guaranteed the debt of his or her company may face preference exposure to the extent the guaranteed debt is paid down during the one-year preference period applicable to insiders. Without doubt, such payments directly benefit the guarantor, whose obligation to the primary creditor is reduced dollar for dollar.

Recently the Eleventh Circuit agreed to hear Jefferson County’s (“JeffCo”) petition for appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Blackburn’s ruling refusing to dismiss one of three appeals filed by JeffCo’s sewer system ratepayers.

People are generally familiar with the concept that a party’s right to appeal applies to those orders that are “final.” A “final” order is one that resolves or disposes of the disputes between the parties. While an interlocutory order may be appealable at the discretion of the appellate court, the aggrieved party has no absolute right to appeal an order that is not “final.”

In the mid-1990’s I represented several trade creditors in a contentious Chapter 11 bankruptcy called Pro-Snax. At the creditors’ request, the bankruptcy court directed the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee one month into the case. Nonetheless the dispossessed debtor pursued a Chapter 11 liquidation plan. The creditors, which held a clear “blocking position” in terms of class voting, opposed the plan. The plan was denied confirmation six months into the case.

As we previewed last week, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently handed General Motors (“New GM”) an enormous victory that may end up shielding the company from up to $10 billion in successor liability claims.

Compensation to be paid to a bankruptcy estate professional is many times subject to intense dispute. In the case of a bankruptcy trustee, section 326 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for a tiered system of compensation based upon the amount of money distributed by the trustee to parties in interest. However, as demonstrated by the recent decision in In re Virgin Offshore U.S.A., Inc., 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 233 (Bankr. E.D. La. Jan.