A popular line of thinking among bankruptcy practitioners and commentators holds that substantive consolidation – the combining of assets and liabilities of a debtor and another debtor or non-debtor entity to satisfy creditor claims against both entities ratably from the resulting pool – is an equitable remedy of judicial invention with no specific foundation in the Bankruptcy Code.

To view the webinar, click here.

To download the PowerPoint slides, click here.

To download the materials, click here.

On April 21st, the Federal Reserve Board requested comment on two bankruptcy-related studies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve Board to study the resolution of financial companies under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the Federal Reserve Board to study international coordination of the resolution of systemically important financial companies under the Bankruptcy Code and applicable foreign law.

The federal government has stopped fighting court rulings that allowed an import company, which was facing steep penalty tariffs, to file bankruptcy and transfer its assets to a new business formed by the debtor's principals. The move is important to small to mid-size companies that want to rid themselves of substantial liabilities by selling assets to a new entity with identical ownership, "free and clear" under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

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.

When a company saddled with potential environmental liabilities seeks bankruptcy protection, the goals of Chapter 11—giving the reorganized debtor a “fresh start” and fairly treating similarly situated creditors—can conflict with the goals of environmental laws, such as ensuring that the “polluter pays.” Courts have long struggled to reconcile this tension.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has taken under advisement the latest case involving the now contentious issue of credit bidding.

Summary

In a 28 page decision signed April 29, 2011, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that in order for a transfer to be considered “substantially contemporaneous” as used by Bankruptcy Code §547(c), it does not necessarily need to comply with the timing requirements of §547(e). Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amended Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”). Rule 2019 governs disclosure requirements for groups and committees that consist of or represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, as well as lawyers and other entities that represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, acting in concert in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Introduction