In the recent case of Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (In re Whittle Development, Inc.), No. 10-37084, 2011 WL 3268398 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2011), a bankruptcy court was asked whether a preference action could be sustained against a creditor who purchased real property in a properly conducted state law foreclosure sale. Recognizing a split of authority and some contrary principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its prior decision, BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994), the bankruptcy court found that a preference claim could be asserted.

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.

This past quarter end once again reminded us that the economy remains weak and borrowers who have managed to hang on for the past three or four years are running out of staying power. The topic again arose - what to do when a borrower files bankruptcy? Faced with the prospect of throwing good money after bad, some lenders bury their head in the sand and simply wait it out, often with terrible results. Others charge ahead aggressively and run up large legal bills that are not justified by the amount of the obligation or the difficulty of recovery.

On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a contractual right of a triangular (non-mutual) setoff was unenforceable in bankruptcy, even though the contract was safe harbored. In re Lehman Brothers, Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011).

On July 22, 2011, Bankruptcy Judge Craig A.

 IN RE: LONGVIEW ALUMINUM, L.L.C. (September 2, 2011)

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

Last month, Jeoffrey Burtch (the "Trustee"), as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Opus South Bankruptcy, began filing preference complaints seeking to recover what the Trustee alleges are avoidable transfers under the Bankruptcy Code.  For those unfamiliar with the Opus South bankruptcy, the company filed petitions for bankruptcy in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court on April 22, 2009.  The Opus South bankruptcy began as a chapter 11 reorganization.  However,  on August 27, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order converting the case to a chapter 7 liquidation.  The Trustee w

In a decision that may have implications for holders of community development district bonds and other similar “dirt bonds,” a Florida bankruptcy court has ruled that holders of community development district bonds do not always have plan voting rights when the underlying developer — as opposed to the development district itself — is the bankruptcy debtor.

When dealing with a debtor in Chapter 11, vendors typically seek to protect against loss by insisting upon payment in advance or on very short terms. However, the monies paid to a vendor following the filing of bankruptcy often constitute the cash collateral of a secured creditor. It is critical that a vendor determine whether the debtor has authorization to use cash collateral.