On January 24, 2011, the Honorable Dwight H. Williams, Jr. of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) request for relief from the automatic stay in the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.

In the current economic environment, many banks have lost significant capital and are under immense pressure, regulatory and otherwise, to recapitalize. Failure to recapitalize within time frames set by bank regulators can result in a bank’s seizure by its chartering authority and an FDIC receivership.

Section 507(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that if a secured creditor receives “adequate protection” for its interest in collateral held by a debtor, but that adequate protection ultimately proves insufficient, then the creditor is entitled to a “superpriority” administrative expense claim sufficient to cover any uncompensated diminution in the value of that collateral.

In Bank of America, N.A. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Case No. 08-01753 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010), the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York was called on to decide whether Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) effectuated an improper setoff of $500 million shortly after Lehman Brother Holdings Inc. (“Lehman” or “LBHI”) filed its petition on September 15, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), and whether the setoff violated the automatic stay.

In a recent opinion, JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overruled its prior decision in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (In re Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), which adopted the accrual test, a standard for determining the existence of a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code.

In the last eighteen months, two Major League Baseball teams, the Chicago Cubs and the Texas Rangers, were sold in bankruptcy. Although both teams engaged in very similar processes leading up to their respective bankruptcy filings, the bankruptcy cases took very divergent paths.

In a decision that may come as a surprise to many, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) recently dismissed a derivative suit brought by a creditor on behalf of an insolvent limited liability company. See CML V, LLC v. Bax et al., 6 A.3d 238 (Del. Ch. 2010)(JetDirect Aviation Holdings, LLC, Nominal Defendant).

What should have been the best economic news of 2010 was largely obscured by the deluge of bad news dominating world headlines. The latter included tidings of chronically high unemployment; a continuing malaise in the U.S. housing market; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; debt crises precipitating the implementation of austerity measures in Britain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Ireland (to name but a few), as well as countless state and local governments in the U.S.; a sharp escalation of food prices worldwide; a deepening U.S.

In a recent decision, CML V, LLC v. Bax, et al., C.A. No 5373-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that, unlike Delaware corporations, creditors of an insolvent Delaware limited liability company cannot bring derivative actions against the members or managers of the company unless they specifically contract for such rights.

It is well established that the automatic stay imposed under section 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in a typical bankruptcy case applies extraterritorially. Thus, creditors of a Chapter 11 debtor are generally prohibited from exercising any remedies against a debtor or its assets anywhere in the world. Up until recently, no court had addressed the scope of the stay applicable in a Chapter 15 case.