Chapter 11 has long been used by companies to obtain relief from legacy tort liabilities. There has been a lingering question, however, as to whether chapter 11 can bar claims by tort litigants who were exposed to a hazardous material or defective product before bankruptcy but do not develop injuries until after the case is over. Some debtors have set up trusts and appointed representatives for so-called “future claimants”: this approach can be effective, but may add months or years to a bankruptcy case along with significant cost, business disruption and litigation.

A & F Enterprises, Inc. v. IHOP Franchising LLC (In re A & F Enterprises, Inc.), 2014 WL 494857 (7th Cir. 2014)

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) in Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.), 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014) recently held that the safe harbor provision of 11 U.S.C.

We recently wrote about the highly controversial decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Fisker Automotive capping a secured creditor’s right to credit bid its $168 million claim at $25 million.[1] The secured creditor immediately appealed to the District Court.[2] As a procedural matter, the secured creditor had an absolute right to have its appeal heard only if the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling was considered a “final order.” If it was not a “final order,” then the District Court had discretion on whether to hear the merits of the appeal. On Feb.

Diaz Reus & Targ LLP scored a stunning victory in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last week on behalf of the government of Venezuela, obtaining complete and final dismissal with prejudice of a suit brought by Smith Rocke Ltd., a purported creditor in the Lehman Bros. bankruptcy.

The case is Smith Rocke, Ltd. v. Republica Vliviariana De Venezuela, No. 12 Cv. 7316 (LGS)., 2014 BL 20749 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2014).

Smith Rocke’s Allegation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Jan. 27, 2014 that a lender’s acceleration due to a borrower’s payment default did not trigger a prepayment premium. In re Denver Merchandise Mart, Inc., 2014 WL 291920, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014) (“Denver Merchandise”). Affirming the lower courts’ application of state law, the court held that “the plain language of the contract does not require the payment of the Prepayment Consideration in the event of mere acceleration.” Id. at *5.  

Relevance

Bankruptcy Court Holds Attorney's Signature on Proof of Claim Form Renders Attorney a Fact Witness to Allegations in Proof of Claim, Waiving Attorney-Client and Work-Product Privileges

The power of an appellate court in the federal system to stay the orders of lower courts or to enjoin conduct that lower courts have refused to enjoin, so as to preserve the appellate court’s jurisdiction to review those orders on ultimate appeal, is clearly established yet infrequently invoked. In addition to other potential sources, the power derives from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.

In a recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Weisfelner, v. Fund 1, et al. (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 159 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

In Van Sickle, the plaintiffs each owned a royalty interest in a well that was originally leased by Comanche Oil Company, which later assigned its interests to Athens/Alpha Gas Corporation. Alpha later filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, and the plan was approved without inclusion of the Van Sickles' claims. The Van Sickles sought to hold both companies liable under the doctrine of successor liability for pre-bankruptcy-court-confirmation royalties under the N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1, which provides in part: