On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig located off the coast of Louisiana killed eleven crewmen and set off what is now considered the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. As a result, BP p.l.c. (“BP”), the parent company of the British Petroleum multinational corporation, faces mounting liabilities related to the damages caused by the disaster and hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed in numerous U.S. state and federal courts.

On January 25, 2010, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that provisions in a CDO indenture subordinating payments due to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., as swap provider, constituted unenforceable ipso facto clauses under the facts and circumstances of this case. The Court also held that, because the payment priority provisions were not contained in the four corners of a swap agreement, the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections, which generally permit the operation of ipso facto clauses, did not apply.

Our May 11th memo entitled “General Growth Properties Bankruptcy Court Defers Final Ruling on Cash Collateral, Cash Management and DIP Financing Issues” concluded that the ultimate impact of the bankruptcy filings of General Growth Properties, Inc. and its affiliates would depend in large part on how the cash collateral and DIP Loan issues were resolved. On May 13th, Judge Allan L. Gropper, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge before whom these bankruptcies are pending, entered final orders on the pending cash collateral, cash management and debtor-in-possession financing motions.

In In re River Center Holdings, LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to permit lenders to enforce an oral commitment of the debtors’ principal to fund certain litigation. In River Center, the debtors’ principal had stated at a hearing that he would fund a condemnation action relating to property that served as collateral for the lenders’ financing.

Introduction

In Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In re Oneida Ltd.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed whether a premium payment created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“DRA”)2 for pension plans terminated as part of a chapter 11 restructuring is a pre-petition claim or a post-petition administrative expense. The Court held that the statutorily mandated premium payment was a contingent pre-petition claim and was discharged upon confirmation of the debtor’s plan.

Late last year, government responses to the subprime mortgage crisis proliferated but most attention focused on those measures that could be, and in some cases were, rapidly implemented — measures like the Treasury Department’s urging holders of certain subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) to freeze interest rates temporarily or the Federal Reserve’s proposed tightening of lending requirements.

On May 4, 2015, a unanimous United States Supreme Court in Bullard v. Blue Hills, 135 S. Ct.

On December 13, 2012, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti from the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York denied the appellant Notes Trustee’s request to compel payment of an administrative expense claim.

Last month the drama surrounding Hostess’s efforts to reject various collective bargaining agreements drew to a close (pending appeal).  Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain (in an unpublished decision) authorized Hostess to reject its existing CBAs with affiliates of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Workers International Union, and modify the terms of its expired CBAs with the Bakers’ Union on an interim basis.  The Bakers Union was the last of Hostess’s major unions holding out and refusing to accept modifications to its CBAs.  See Transcript of Hearing, In re Hoste

On June 22, 2012, Judge Robert Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union to dismiss Hostess’s motion to reject certain expired collective bargaining agreements.  The court held that section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code no longer applied to key portions of the CBAs because the agreements had expired – certain CBA obligations remained in force only by operation of the National Labor Relations Act.  In re Hostess Brands, Inc., 2012 WL 23