MATRIX IV, INC. v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO (July 28, 2011)

Summary

In a 23 page decision signed July 15, 2011, Judge Walsh of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a motion to allow a plaintiff to file an amended complaint, holding that the amended complaint was too deficient to survive a motion to dismiss and therefore would not be allowed. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

The Bottom Line:

Bankruptcy Judge Michael Lynn of the Northern District of Texas recently issued a noteworthy opinion in In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. that addresses two important Chapter 11 confirmation issues. Judge Lynn determined that a plan that artificially impaired a class of claims in order to meet the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) had not been proposed in bad faith and did not violate the requirements of section 1129(a). In his ruling, Judge Lynn also applied the Supreme Court’s cram-down “interest”1 rate teachings in Till v.

The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 2011 WL 2472792 (June 23, 2011), drew upon a tortured factual background filled with sensational accusations and revelations, to deliver an opinion that definitively upsets a quarter- century’s jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts over a large set of actions.

Summary

An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  Yessenow v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2011 WL 2623307 (Ill. App. Ct. June 30, 2011).

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

On June 13, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) released a final rule that, in most cases, will reduce the amount of pension benefits guaranteed under the agency’s single-employer insurance program when a pension plan is terminated in a bankruptcy case. The rule will also decrease the amount of pension benefits given priority in bankruptcy.

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