In a novel decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in its ruling In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014), that personal injury claims of individuals allegedly harmed by a bankrupt debtor’s products cannot be asserted against a pre-petition purchaser of the debtor’s assets, as they are “generalized claims” which belong to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate rather than to the individuals who suffered the harm.

Background

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law recently held hearings regarding certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, including the safe harbor from preference and fraudulent conveyance claims for “settlement payments.”

In its first bankruptcy decision of 2014 (October Term, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held on March 4, 2014, in Law v. Siegel, No. 12-5196 (Mar. 4, 2014) (available athttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-5196_8mjp.pdf), that a bankruptcy court cannot impose a surcharge on exempt property due to a chapter 7 debtor's misconduct, acknowledging that the Supreme Court's decision may create "inequitable results" for trustees and creditors.

The Third Circuit held that a supplier may accept court-approved “critical vendor” payments post-petition from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate without fear that such payments will increase that supplier’s liability for payments received pre-petition. Friedman’s Liquidating Trust v. Roth Staffing Cos., 738 F.3d 547 (3d Cir. 2013) (No.

Recent rulings in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S.

The case of Simon v. FIA Card, Services, N.A., recently decided by the Third Circuit, demonstrates the potential for conflicts between the Bankruptcy Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and emphasizes that banks should approach bankruptcy debtors with caution.

Last Friday, Judge Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied Hybrid Tech Holdings LLC’s appeal of the Delaware bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. et al, to (i) cap Hybrid Tech’s credit bid for Fisker Automotive’s assets, and (ii) require that the assets be sold via a public auction rather than directly to Hybrid Tech in a private sale.

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

The “new value” defense used by creditors in preference actions requires a creditor to determine the pre-petition amounts of unpaid “new value” it gave to a debtor after the debtor paid the creditor for goods/services provided. Debtors often argue that creditors can’t use this defense for pre-petition new value that has been repaid on a post-petition basis. Such repayments include critical vendor payments and payments for goods/services provided to the debtor within the 20 days prior to a bankruptcy filing.

In Simon v. FIA Card Services, N.A.,[1] the U.S.