The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued a decision addressing triangular set-off provisions, which potentially has very far-reaching implications for the enforceability of contractual set-off rights under U.S. law.

On April 8, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that creates an additional hurdle for companies providing single-employer pension funds when seeking to reorganize through a bankruptcy. In general, the termination of a pension plan can give rise to a per-employee termination premium (a “Termination Premium”) owed by the company terminating the plan to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), the quasi-governmental entity that insures pension plans.

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) changed the legal landscape of bankruptcy asset sales. Prior to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer, 391 B.R. 25 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008), courts routinely stripped liens from assets purchased in a bankruptcy sale. Moreover, appeals of these sales were generally considered non-reviewable. The BAP in Clear Channel overturned these two longstanding features of bankruptcy asset sales, and, if followed, this decision could result in enforcement of existing property liens against asset purchasers.

Retiree benefits are often a central issue in bankruptcy cases. For many employers the high cost of retiree medical benefits has been a significant contributing factor to the Chapter 11 filing and a matter of ongoing concern if the debtor is to be able to successfully reorganize. Understandably, employees, retirees and unions are equally concerned about the status of retiree benefits. Their obvious interest is to attempt to prevent the erosion of benefits that had been expected to be available during retirement.

As widely expected, GM and all of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on June 1, 2009. Besides General Motors Corporation, the other three associated debtors are: Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc., Saturn, LLC and Saturn Distribution Corporation. Please note that GMAC is not included in these bankruptcy filings.

Reinhardt v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance Inc. (In re Reinhardt)

563 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009)

On May 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the “Credit CARD Act of 2009” or the “Act”), Public Law No: 111-24. The Act is intended to crackdown on certain credit card practices perceived as abusive – such as retroactive interest rate increases, "double cycle" billing and the offering of "fee harvester" cards. For credit counseling agencies and those that advertise and market debt management plan services to consumers, the Act is notable in three primary ways:

Only twice has the U.S. Supreme Court spoken directly to environmental issues in bankruptcy – until now. Today the Supreme Court ruled that certain claims can in fact be barred by a bankruptcy court's channeling injunction. The case is particularly important in light of the major corporate bankruptcies now under way in the industrial sector, where environmental costs can drive the success or failure of a restructuring.

With the economic crisis leading to the failure of many businesses, bankruptcy cases are on the rise. In many of the cases grabbing headlines, such as Lehman Brothers, Nellson Nutraceutical, New Century and SemCrude, courts have shown a willingness to appoint examiners to investigate, report on and make recommendations regarding possible issues of mismanagement, fraud or other improprieties relating to the affairs of the debtor or its former or current management.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, applying New York law, has held that an insured did not violate an insurance policy's cooperation clause when it agreed, without providing advance notice to the insurer, to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay with respect to certain personal injury actions filed against it. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Grace Indus., Inc., 2009 WL 2222369 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009).