Amid the economic hardships brought upon us by the Great Recession, the plight of cities, towns, and other municipalities across the U.S. has received a significant amount of media exposure. The media has been particularly interested in the spate of recent chapter 9 bankruptcy filings by Vallejo, Stockton, San Bernardino, and Mammoth Lakes, California; Jefferson County, Alabama; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Central Falls, Rhode Island. A variety of factors have combined to create a virtual maelstrom of woes for U.S.
On November 7, 2012, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York held that payments made in connection with a leveraged buyout to holders of privately held securities were safe harbored under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code notwithstanding the fact that the payments passed directly from the purchaser to the seller without the use of any financial intermediary. AP Services LLP v. Silva, et al., Case No. 11-03005 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2012).
The effects of the recent fi nancial crisis and the ensuing recession continue to take their toll on municipalities in the United States, which are struggling with reduced revenues at the same time their residents have an increased need for government services.
In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 11-33335-HDH-15 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June 13, 2012)
Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a procedure to obtain recognition of a foreign bankruptcy, insolvency or debt adjustment proceeding (a “foreign proceeding”) in the United States. Chapter 15 draws a distinction between a “foreign main proceeding” (i.e., a foreign proceeding pending in a country where the debtor has the center of its main interests) and a “foreign nonmain proceeding” (i.e., a foreign proceeding pending where the debtor has “an establishment”).
One of the fundamental principles of commercial law is the freedom to contract with a particular party, or to refuse do so. "As a general rule, businesses are free to choose the parties with whom they will deal, as well as the prices, terms and conditions of that dealing." See Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009). However, the Bankruptcy Code may permit a court to alter this fundamental principle in certain circumstances. A bankruptcy court did just that in In re Mathson Industries, Inc., 423 B.R. 643 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
In re WL Homes LLC, Case No. 09-10571 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The debtor’s insurer sought to lift the automatic stay in order to setoff $2.2 million in return premiums against potential defense costs that the insurer expected to incur related to certain insurance claims made against the debtor. The court denied the motion, finding that the insurer had not established a right to setoff under either state law or the Bankruptcy Code.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P., 2012 BL 140988 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The creditor appealed the denial of its claim for pre-petition interest at the contractual default rate. The district court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the bankruptcy court had incorrectly applied an "equitable analysis" in making its decision.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re KB Toys, Inc., 470 B.R. 331 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT