In ABN Amro Bank N.V. v. Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A. (In re Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A.),1 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of an injunction pursuant to former section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code (the precursor to current chapter 15, applicable in crossborder insolvency proceedings), which prevented the beneficiary of a guaranty governed by New York law from asserting its guaranty claim against Italian debtor (and guarantor) Parmalat S.p.A. (“Parmalat”) in the United States.

*As seen on Bankruptcy Law360.

In In re River Center Holdings, LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to permit lenders to enforce an oral commitment of the debtors’ principal to fund certain litigation. In River Center, the debtors’ principal had stated at a hearing that he would fund a condemnation action relating to property that served as collateral for the lenders’ financing.

In Henderson v. Powermate Holding Corp. (In re Powermate Holding Corp.)1, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware became the second bankruptcy court to address the status of WARN Act claims after the 2005 amendments to section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appears to have further raised the hurdle to equitably subordinate claims. Continuing what appears to be a move toward a narrower interpretation of equitable subordination, the Seventh Circuit held that misconduct alone does not provide sufficient justification to equitably subordinate a claim; injury to the interests of other creditors is required as well.

On December 18, 2008, in connection with the bankruptcy of the Steve & Barry’s retail chain, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that under Section 365(d)(3) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), landlords are entitled to pro-rata postpetition rental payments for the monthly “stub” period following the filing of the debtor-tenant’s bankruptcy petition provided that the debtor-tenant continues to enjoy the right to use and occupy the leased property.

As a result of the meltdown of the financial markets, lenders are severely constricting new credit facilities and refusing to renew expiring facilities. The Bankruptcy Code's chapter 11 provides a powerful mechanism for an otherwise viable business to restructure and extend its outstanding debt and in many cases, reduce interest rates on loan facilities.

A federal bankruptcy imposed sanctions against two mortgage companies and their attorneys for making misrepresentations as to which party was the true holder of the mortgage and note. Decisions such as the one in In re Nosek resonate with particular significance as the mortgage crisis continues to have widespread ramifications.  

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued a decision that provides an important summary concerning the circumstances under which state law causes of action asserted between nondebtor parties are sufficiently interconnected with claims brought against a debtor to be considered “core proceedings,” which may be determined as part of a bankruptcy case. In re Exide Technologies, 544 F.3d 196 (3d. Cir. 2008).  

Last year, the Ninth Circuit BAP determined that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a secured creditor to credit bid its debt, and purchase estate property free and clear of non-consenting junior liens, outside a plan of reorganization. Uncertainty resulting from the decision in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Nancy Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2008) may chill bidding and asset sales in the Ninth Circuit.