A few months ago, a ruling in the Chapter 11 case of Fisker Automotive narrowed a secured creditor’s right to credit bid its debt in connection with a sale of the debtor’s assets.  The decision surprised many observers and resurrected uncertainty about a debtor’s ability to limit a secured lender’s credit bidding rights (a dispute that appeared to have been firmly r

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), requires trustees of multiemployer pension and benefit funds to collect contributions required to be made by contributing employers under their collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with the labor union sponsoring the plans. This is not always an easy task—often, an employer is an incorporated entity with limited assets or financial resources to satisfy its contractual obligations.

On 10 April 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a joint policy statement on the antitrust implications of sharing cybersecurity information to help facilitate the flow of cyberintelligence throughout the private sector. The statement addresses the long-standing concern that sharing cyberintelligence may violate antitrust law under certain circumstances and explains the analytical framework for such arrangements to make it clear that legitimate cyberintelligence exchanges will not raise antitrust issues.

On March 20, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an important decision in Stoebner v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (In re LGI Energy Solutions Inc.), No. 12-3899, Slip Op. (8th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014) that expands the scope of the “subsequent new value” defense in lawsuits seeking to clawback alleged preference payments.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the question of how much protection is required for a secured creditor to be adequately protected. Banker’s Bank of Kansas, N.A. v. Bluejay Properties, LLC (In re Bluejay Properties, LLC), Bankr. No. 12-22680 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2014)(unpublished).

The definition of a family famer under § 101(18)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code is convoluted at best:  a family farmer is a farmer whose aggregate noncontingent, liquidated debts arising out of his farming operation make up not less than 50% of his debts; however, the farmer’s debt “for” his principal residence is excluded in making this calculation unless the debt also “arises out of” his farming operation, in which event it is included in making the calculation.    In its opinion in First National Bank of Durango v.

CALIFORNIA COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW POST-VERDICT SETOFFS OF POTENTIAL BANKRUPTCY TRUST CLAIMS

Evidence of claims by plaintiffs to asbestos bankruptcy trusts is critical to the defense of any asbestos case. In California, for example, Volkswagen of America Inc. v. Superior Court (Rusk) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, highlighted the importance of the discovery of such claims for purposes of setoffs and establishing a defendant’s proportional share of damages.

On April 11, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rendered an important decision regarding the long-running bankruptcy case of SW Boston Hotel Venture LLC (“SW”), the developer of the W Boston Hotel. This Advisory focuses on two key rulings made by the First Circuit: (i) when an oversecured creditor’s claim for post-petition interest in a debtor’s chapter 11 case begins to accrue and (ii) how such post-petition interest should be calculated in the instances where it is due.

New value is an important defense to preference liability under the Bankruptcy Code. It allows a preference defendant to relieve their preference liability on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the value provided to the debtor prior to the bankruptcy case.

In a very important decision, the Eighth Circuit recently addressed how the new value defense to preference liability should be applied in three-party payment arrangement.

When Reston-based Simplexity, LLC (known more commonly as Wirefly.com and its related sites) recently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy it had, sadly, already terminated nearly its entire workforce.  According to pleadings filed in the case, Simplexity had hoped to market and sell its assets outside of bankruptcy in order to maximize creditor recovery and preserve the jobs of its employees.   Instead, its liquidity reached such a critical level that it was forced to cease operations on March 12 and file for bankruptcy protection on March 16, 2014.  Just one day later, on M