Introduction

Much attention in the commercial bankruptcy world has been devoted recently to judicial pronouncements concerning whether the practice of senior creditor class “gifting” to junior classes under a chapter 1 1 plan violates the Bankruptcy Code’s “absolute priority rule.” Comparatively little scrutiny, by contrast, has been directed toward significant developments in ongoing controversies in the courts regarding the absolute priority rule outside the realm of senior class gifting— namely, in connection with the “new value” exception to the rule and whether the rule was written out of the Bankr

A debtor’s exclusive right to formulate and solicit acceptances for a plan of reorganization during the initial stages of a chapter 11 case is one of the most important benefits conferred under the Bankruptcy Code as a means of facilitating the successful restructuring of an ailing enterprise. By giving a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession time to devise a solution to balance sheet and operational problems without being burdened by the competing agendas of other stakeholders in the bankruptcy case, exclusivity levels the playing field, at least temporarily.

As part of the 2005 revisions of the Bankruptcy Code, Congress greatly enhanced the priority of claims asserted by suppliers of goods to debtors in the 20-day period immediately prior to a debtor’s bankruptcy filing by enacting new section 503(b)(9). This new provision raises several interesting issues, some of which were addressed by two recent cases examining the question of when such claims are to be paid.

The Language of Section 503(b)(9)

Can the nondebtor party to an executory contract withhold services to the debtor postpetition if the debtor breached the contract prepetition?

Many view this as a settled area of bankruptcy law, and believe that the answer is “no” as long as the debtor is performing postpetition. Commentators of this view question how a debtor could ever reorganize if nondebtors did not have to perform under contracts postpetition, particularly if the debtor’s business is entirely dependant upon the contract at issue.

On May 24, 2007, optional federal charter (OFC) legislation was reintroduced into the Senate as the National Insurance Act of 2007 (S. 40) (NIA), co-sponsored by John Sununu (R-NH) and Tim Johnson (D-SD). A similar bill is expected to be reintroduced into the House by Ed Royce (R-CA) in the coming weeks. The bill closely resembles the original legislation filed last year by the same co-sponsors. The major changes in the new bill are provisions concerning surplus lines/nonadmitted insurers and the insolvency/guaranty funds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of estate property did not preclude the enforcement of an arbitration provision.

Is a landlord’s ability to recover repair costs chargeable to the lessee limited because such repair costs are included in “damages resulting from the termination of a lease of real property” pursuant to section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code? In In re Foamex International, Inc., 2007 WL 1461954 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2007), the bankruptcy judge said “Yes.”

A recent decision out of a North Carolina bankruptcy court has reopened the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Although previous U.S. case law determined that those terms included commodity supply agreements, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina disagreed.

On August 27, 2007, United States District Judge Shira Scheindlin held that Springfield Associates, an innocent transferee of a claim from Citigroup against Enron, was not subject to certain counterclaims and defenses so long as Springfield was a “purchaser” and not an “assignee” of the claim. See In re Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs. L.L.C., No. 07 Civ. 1957, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2007).