The November/December 2007 issue of Insolvency Notes featured an article highlighting a Manhattan-based federal bankruptcy court's refusal to officially recognize proceedings commenced in the Cayman Islands to liquidate two Bear Stearns-managed hedge funds that collapsed in June of that year.

In a recent case,1 the Fifth Circuit emphasized its rule that a creditor's claim may be equitably subordinated to the claims of other creditors only to the extent necessary to offset the harm that the other creditors have suffered, based on specific findings and conclusions.

Background

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has affirmed two final orders of the bankruptcy court finding that (1) the debtor's insurers lacked standing to object to confirmation of the bankruptcy plan; (2) a channeling injunction for silica claims was appropriately included in the debtor's plan; (3) an assignment of the debtor's rights under its insurance policies to the personal injury trust was authorized by bankruptcy law; and (4) the debtor's reorganization plan was confirmable under the Bankruptcy Code. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v.

Your franchisee files bankruptcy; is this good news or bad news? It could be either depending on whether the debtor wishes to keep the franchise in place or plans to let it go. The Bankruptcy Code has special rules on how a debtor can treat this type of agreement where it was entered into prior to the filing of the bankruptcy and remains in effect as of the time the case was filed.

The solicitation of creditor votes on a plan is a crucial part of the chapter 11 process. At a minimum, a chapter 11 plan can be confirmed only if at least one class of impaired creditors (or interest holders) votes to accept the plan. A plan proponent’s efforts to solicit an adequate number of plan acceptances, however, may be complicated if creditors or other enfranchised stakeholders neglect (or choose not) to vote.

In Go West Entertainment, Inc. v. New York Liquor Authority (In re Go West Entertainment, Inc.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to extend the automatic stay or to utilize its other injunctive powers to prevent state regulatory authorities from revoking a debtor’s liquor license.

Buyers of, and lenders upon, distressed California real property can sleep a little better following a recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision: In the Matter of Craig L. Tippett, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18914 (September 4, 2008). In Tippett, the Court upheld the California bona fide purchaser statute against a federal preemption claim and declined to find a violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision in order to affirm an unauthorized real property sale by the Chapter 7 debtor.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing an important issue with respect to the preservation of a debtor's causes of action in a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized debtor lacked standing to pursue certain common-law claims that were based on the pre-confirmation management of the bankruptcy estate's assets.

Earlier today (September 15, 2008), Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Holdings), the corporate parent of the fourth largest investment bank in the United States, filed for Chapter 11 protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As of writing, neither Holdings’ broker-dealer subsidiaries (including Lehman Brothers, Inc. [Lehman NY]) nor other subsidiaries (including Neuberger Berman Holdings, LLC, its asset management subsidiary) have commenced insolvency proceedings in the United States.

In In re Falcon Products, Inc., 381 B.R. 543 (8th Cir. BAP, 2008), the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) for the Eighth Circuit reversed a decision by the bankruptcy court for the District of Missouri, and held that when applying the hypothetical liquidation test to determine whether a secured creditor received potentially preferential payments, the collateral must be valued as of the petition date and not as of the payment transfer date.