Introduction

In January of this year, George L Miller, the chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") in the WL Homes bankruptcy, began filing avoidance actions against various creditors. As alleged in the complaints, the Trustee seeks the recovery of what he deems are "preferential transfers" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. This post will look briefly at the WL Homes bankruptcy, as well as provide information on common issues that arise in preference litigation.

Background on the Bankruptcy Proceeding

On February 1, 2011, AES Thames, LLC ("AES" or "Debtor") filed petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. According to the Declaration of AES's President in Support of First Day Motions (the "Declaration"), AES owns and operates a coal-fired power plant in Montville, Connecticut.

Judge Burton Lifland, the bankruptcy judge overseeing the liquidation proceedings of Bernard L.

On February 8th, the CFTC published for comment proposed regulations that would set forth parameters for the inclusion of an orderly liquidation termination provision in the swap trading relationship documentation for swap dealers and major swap participants. Comments should be submitted on or before April 11, 2011. 76 FR 6708.  

The Bankruptcy Code sets forth the relative priority of claims against a debtor and the waterfall in which such claims are typically paid. In order for a court to confirm a plan over a dissenting class of creditors – what is commonly called a “cram-down” – the Bankruptcy Code demands thateither (i) the dissenting class receives the full value of its claim, or (ii) no classes junior to that class receive any property under the plan on account of their junior claims or interests. This is known as the “absolute priority rule.”

In Rea v. Federal Investors (10-1440), the Third Circuit held that no private cause of action exists against a private employer that refused to hire an applicant because the applicant previously filed for bankruptcy. The appellant applied to an investment firm and, after an interview, the firm was seemingly poised to hire him. The investment firm, however, denied him employment because it discovered he filed bankruptcy seven years earlier. The appellant filed suit, claiming the firm violated federal law by discriminating against him on account of his prior bankruptcy.

On February 8, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that will have a major impact on Chapter 11 plan confirmation. In consolidated appeals stemming from theIn re DBSD North America, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Second Circuit held that (1) the “gifting” aspect of the debtors’ plan of reorganization violated the absolute priority rule, and (2) the bankruptcy court did not err in designating a secured creditor’s vote as lacking “good faith” and disregarding that vote for purposes of confirmation.

The DBSD Plan

On January 25, 2011, Lehman Brothers filed an amended version of its plan of liquidation (the Plan). Contrasted against its predecessor version, the Plan creates some winners and some losers in terms of the percentage of projected payouts to creditors of various Lehman entities. More important than the percentage distribution, however, may be the means by which the debtors seek to fix a creditor’s claim amount. With regard to claims based on derivatives contracts, Lehman proposes to take a novel – and for holders of those claims, potentially alarming – approach.

In a 113-page decision issued on February 11 (the "District Court Decision"), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Gold, J.) delivered a blistering rebuke to the Florida Bankruptcy Court (Olson, J.) when it quashed the portions of the famous / infamous 2009 TOUSA decision (the "Trial Decision") holding the so-called "Transeastern Lenders" liable for fraudulent transfers in connection with T

Introduction