Legal Update
September 27, 2013
In re Tribune: Defendants Successfully Challenge Individual
Creditors Standing But District Court Rules that Section 546(e)
Safe Harbor Does Not Bar Individual Creditors’ State Law Based
Constructive Fraudulent Conveyance Claims
On September 23, 2013, the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York in In re
Tribune1 held that the individual creditor suits at
issue were stayed because the Creditors’
Committee was in the process of prosecuting
claims for intentional fraudulent conveyance

The Seventh Circuit has explicitly adopted the Second Circuit’s broad interpretation of the terms “transfer” and “settlement payment” in the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions. See Peterson v. Somers Dublin Ltd., No. 12-2463, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4767495 (7th Cir. Sept.

On September 12, 2013, in the American Airlines case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (a) authorizing the debtor to use proceeds of postpetition financing to repay prepetition debt without payment of amake-whole amount, and (b) denying a creditor’s request for relief fromthe automatic stay.  

Background Facts

Companies of all sizes, new or mature, sometimes go out of business. “California Or Bust” is legendary in American history, but “bust” sometimes happens despite everyone’s best efforts. If you are an officer or director of a company that is heading toward its final days, there is a critical wind-down task: final paychecks. The simple (but widely ignored) fact is that officers and directors can be held personally liable for unpaid wages under federal and state law in certain circumstances, and the entity’s bankruptcy status often has no effect on individual liability.

Missouri receivership law should not simply mimic the federal Bankruptcy Code. At least one Court of Appeals has suggested that the federal bankruptcy laws may preempt a state receivership statute that goes too far in creating a collective procedure to distribute assets to creditors.

Many commentators have remarked that a “new normal” has evolved for Chapter 11 proceedings, wherein the major constituents negotiate the salient terms and exit strategy of the debtor’s restructuring prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, generally leading to shorter, less litigious cases.

On Sept. 12, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny payment of a make-whole premium (the “Make-Whole Amount”) to bondholders under three separate indentures (the “Indentures”) based on the plain language of those agreements. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. AMR Corp. et al. (In re AMR Corp.), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4840474 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (“In re AMR Corp. II”).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently shut down litigation filed by plaintiffs who had represented to a Bankruptcy Court that their claims were worth far less than they were attempting to recover in a lawsuit filed in federal district court. Queen v. TA Operating, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4419322, (10th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013).

Applying Pennsylvania law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that an insured’s failure to notify its insurer of a potential claim violated the notice provision of the policy.  Pelagatti v. Minn. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3213796 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2013).  In  so doing, the court held that the insurer was not required to show that it was prejudiced by the late notice and that whether the insured’s failure to provide timely notice negates coverage is determined under a “hybrid subjective/objective test.”

The Bottom Line