Liquidations of struggling enterprises can take several forms. While many people are familiar with the concept of a "bankruptcy liquidation," the structure of a liquidation in bankruptcy may vary depending upon the specific type of case. Additionally, bankruptcy is not the only forum for liquidation of distressed companies, only the most common. This article provides a synopsis of some of the various types of liquidations.

Chapter 11 Liquidations

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar

Much is being written about the significant losses suffered by automobile suppliers to both the domestic and transplant automobile manufacturers. These losses are creating alarm among many others, including the OEMs themselves, according to Dave Hannon at Purchasing Magazine.

The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.  

BANKRUPTCY REFORM

House panel holds hearing on Circuit City liquidation; questions if BAPCPA to blame.  

AUTOMOTIVE  

Monaco Coach Corp. files Chapter 11 in Delaware.  

April 17, 2009, will mark the three-and-one-half-year anniversary of the effective date of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which was enacted as part of the comprehensive bankruptcy reforms implemented under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

Introduction

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a nondebtor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, even if the parties had entered into pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff.1 In reaching its decision, the Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to “mutual” obligations — i.e., direct obligations between a single obligor and obligee.

As the Madoff Securities and Stanford Financial schemes have unraveled in recent months, financial industry participants have had to scrutinize closely their involvement with these entities. A key issue in each of these cases will be the extent to which the trustee (or similar representative) can “claw back” payments made as part of the Ponzi and related fraudulent schemes. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered similar facts in Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC v. Redwood Growth Partners, L.P.

During the present downturn in the U.S. economy, opportunities exist for investors in global distressed asset markets. Purchasers and sellers involved in these markets should be aware of the various mechanisms that are available to transfer assets of distressed companies. Historically, asset sales under s. 363 of the Bankruptcy Code1 have proven to be cheaper and faster than purchasing distressed assets through a Chapter 11 reorganization. Recent cases have shown that s.

While uncertainties loom around the auto industry, suppliers and OEMs can try to prepare for the road the lies ahead.