A recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas concludes that directors of a non-debtor general partner may owe fiduciary duties to a limited partnership debtor in bankruptcy whether or not such duties exist (or have been disclaimed) under the debtor's and general partner's organizational documents or applicable state law.[1]  In deciding whether to dismiss an involuntary petition filed against Houston Regional Sports Network, L.P.

On March 26, The Honorable Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, affirmed a Bankruptcy Court’s $5 million fee award to Baker Botts for successfully defending its fee application in the ASARCO LLC bankruptcy case.

In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases (the Show Cause Order), Judge Karen Brown has directed Omega’s Senior Lenders, Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee to show cause whether they should be sanctioned for the conduct described in the Show Cause Order, a copy of which can be found HERE.

In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases, Judge Karen Brown has denied motions to dismiss or convert Omega’s chapter 11 cases or for relief from stay filed by Omega’s Senior Lenders and supported by Omega’s Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee. In the view of Lloyd’s List, a leading industry publication:

Postconfirmation liquidation and litigation trusts have become an important mechanism in a chapter 11 bankruptcy estate’s arsenal, allowing for the resolution of claims and interests without needlessly delaying confirmation in the interim. The specter of postconfirmation litigation may seem unremarkable. Section 1123(b)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code states that a plan may provide for retention or enforcement by the reorganized debtor, the trustee, or a representative of the estate of any claim or interest belonging to the estate.

In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rejection of the cost methodology to value the right to use common amenities in a condominium development and, in the process, bolstered the notion that bankruptcy courts have discretion in determining what valuation methodologies are appropriate under the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Scotia Development, LLC,1 Judge Richard S. Schmidt denied the motions of several creditors and the State of California seeking transfer of venue from the Southern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, finding that venue was proper in Texas and that California would not be a more convenient forum for the financial restructuring of the debtors.

Background

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, applying federal law, has reversed a bankruptcy court's ruling that the proceeds of an E&O liability policy were property of a bankruptcy estate. In re Burr Wolff, LP, 2007 WL 2964835 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2007). The court held instead that the issue was not ripe for adjudication because a declaratory judgment action concerning the insurer's obligations under the policy was pending, and thus "no proceeds" were currently available.

In a recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Mary Walrath has required that members of an informal committee of noteholders comply with expansive disclosure requirements beyond the standard established for official committees. In a written opinion issued on December 2, 2009 in the case of In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Case No. 08-12229 (MFW), Judge Walrath granted a motion to require an informal group of noteholders to comply with Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

Hedge funds and other investors in debt or equity securities often form unofficial “ad hoc” committees through which they actively participate in chapter 11 cases. Recent decisions affirm that such ad hoc committees must comply with the disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 – including the nature and amounts of claims or interests held by members and other details. What about a “group” that says it’s a lot less than an ad hoc committee and therefore, outside the Rule?