On November 10 we posted to Basis Points a blog concerning a Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision (In re Universal Building Products) that fired a warning shot across the bows of professionals who solicit Creditors’ Committee proxies from non-clients of their firms (here is the blog).

What you need to know

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that where a medical malpractice claim is transferred from an insolvent insurer to the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, the Fund is liable for the statutory cap of $299,999 for each of the multiple claims arising from one overall medical incident, subject to the policy’s aggregate limits.

What you need to do

In St. Hill v. Tribeca Lending Corp., Case No. 09-2214, 2010 WL 2997724 (3rd Cir. Dec. 8, 2010), the Third Circuit showed that, in determining whether the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) applied to a credit transaction, it would look beyond obvious facts to ascertain a transaction's "primary purpose."

Our October 2010 DechertOnPoint “FDIC Begins Action on Its Super-Resolution Rules for Covered Financial Companies” discussed how systemi-cally significant non-bank financial companies (“covered financial compa-nies”) may find themselves in unknown territory if the FDIC is appointed re-ceiver for them.

Introduction

A debtor's decision to assume or reject an executory contract is typically given deferential treatment by bankruptcy courts under a "business judgment" standard. Certain types of nondebtor parties to such contracts, however, have been afforded special protections. For example, in 1988, Congress added section 365(n) to the Bankruptcy Code, granting some intellectual property licensees the right to continued use of licensed property, notwithstanding a debtor's rejection of the underlying license agreement.

The "common interest" doctrine allows attorneys representing different clients with aligned legal interests to share information and documents without waiving the work-product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Issues involving the common-interest doctrine often arise during the course of a business restructuring, because restructurings tend to involve various constituencies, including the company, the official committee of unsecured creditors, secured debt holders, other creditors, and equity holders whose legal interests may be aligned at any one time.

Earlier this month, in Rea v. Federated Investors, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25501 (Dec. 15, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that while federal law prohibits a private employer from firing or discriminating against an employee who files or has filed for bankruptcy, it does not prohibit a private employer from denying employment to someone simply because he had filed for bankruptcy in the past. Thus, 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) does not create a cause of action against private employers who engage in discriminatory hiring.

The early 2000s witnessed a wave of chapter 11 filings by entities with liability for asbestos personal-injury claims. The large number of filings was matched by the variety of legal strategies that companies pursued to address their asbestos liabilities in chapter 11. The chapter 11 case of Quigley Company, Inc. ("Quigley"), was one of the last large asbestos cases to file in the 2000s and represents one of the more interesting strategies for dealing with asbestos liabilities in chapter 11.

Regional landline network operator Fairpoint Communications is finally poised to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a result of the decision of the Vermont Public Safety Board (VPSB) to approve the company’s amended reorganization plan. Vermont had been the lone holdout among Maine, New Hampshire and 15 other states that had previously endorsed the plan. The reorganization was precipitated largely by the financial burden of FairPoint’s $2.3 billion purchase of New England landlines from Verizon Communications in 2008.