Earlier this month, Bettina M Whyte, the SemGroup Litigation Trustee (the "Trustee") filed approximately 350 adversary actions against various creditors in the SemCrude bankruptcy. The majority of the adversary actions are preference actions under 11 U.S.C. section 547 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Some of the adversary actions, however, allege defendants received fraudulent transfers from various SemCrude debtors (the "Debtors").

The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently clarified the applicable requirements for post-petition severance payments to a debtor’s former officers. In the case of In re: Forum Health, et al.1, the debtor sought authorization from the Court to make a severance payment in the amount of $18,126.00 to its former Chief Executive Officer. The Trustee objected, asserting that the debtor’s motion was not based on a program that was generally applicable to all full-time employees as required by 11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(2)(A).

Creation of the Bankruptcy Estate  

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently denied the appointment of an examiner in U.S. Bank National Association v. Wilmington Trust Co. (In re Spansion, Inc.),1 despite the requirement in section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code that the Court "shall" appoint an examiner in certain circumstances. In making this decision, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J.

Introduction

The recent decision in the case of In re Erickson Retirement Communities, LLC, 425 B.R. 309 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2010) provides ammunition for those opposing the appointment of an examiner in a debtor’s Chapter 11 case and a cautionary tale for lenders entering into subordination agreements.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code does not prohibit a foreign representative from bringing an avoidance action so long as the claim for relief is based on the substantive laws of the jurisdiction where the foreign proceeding is located. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is consistent with the dual policy considerations of comity and predictability. Fogerty v. Petroquest Res., Inc. (In re Condor Ins. Ltd.), 601 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2010).

Background

In re Visteon Corp., No. 10-1944-cv, 2010 WL 2735715 (3d Cir. July 13, 2010), the Third Circuit held that Visteon Corporation (Visteon) could not terminate unvested retiree health and life insurance benefits during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without seeking court approval pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1114, 11 U.S.C. § 1114. The Third Circuit’s decision departs from the rulings of many other federal courts, and is in tension, if not outright conflict, with the Second Circuit’s decision in LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 945 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.

Introduction

In a decision that may create a significant roadblock for companies saddled with environmental clean-up liability to continue as a going concern, the Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. Apex Oil Company, Inc., 579 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2009) affirmed a district court injunction requiring the clean-up of a contaminated site in Illinois under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) despite the company's bankruptcy. On September 27, 2010, the Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss whether to grant review of the Apex decision.

Introduction