The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.

On January 7, 2013, the Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a dispute concerning the debtors’ use of cash collateral was not subject to arbitration, notwithstanding a broad arbitration clause in the parties’ underlying agreement, because the decision to allow a debtor to use cash collateral constituted a “core” issue and was a fundamental aspect of the bankruptcy process. In re Hostess Brands, Inc., No. 12-22052 (RDD), 2013 WL 82914 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013).

Background

Overview

A lender’s entitlement to a make-whole premium, that is, a prepayment penalty designed to compensate the lender for the loss of interest payments it would have received had the borrower continued to service the debt through the maturity date of the loan, depends principally on the plain language of the bond indenture or credit agreement.  See, e.g.,HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calpine Corp. (In re Calpine Corp.),No. 07 Civ 3088 (GBD), 2010 WL 3835200, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.

Criminal defendants facing onerous restitution obligations as part of their sentence might contemplate a bankruptcy filing, in the hope of staving off the restitution obligation. In a case of first impression, the Second Circuit recently considered whether the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision halts a defendant’s obligation to pay restitution and firmly closed the door on that potential gambit.

Recent Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit opinions highlight the dispute over whether or not the Bankruptcy Code authorizes allowance of claims for post-petition legal fees incurred by unsecured creditors. Specifically, while not all Circuits agree, in the wake of the 2007 United States Supreme Court decision Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of North America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 549 U.S.

Tax-qualification requirements generally prohibit plan sponsors from eliminating optional methods of distribution under a retirement plan. This “anti-cutback” requirement is subject to only a limited number of exceptions. A recent modification to this rule adds a new exception for single-employer defined benefit plans maintained by employers in bankruptcy. Such employers may amend their plans to eliminate lump-sum distribution options if certain conditions are met.

The Anti-Cutback Rule

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently issued two opinions examining standing issues in bankruptcy proceedings. This article examines how those cases clarify bankruptcy practice and procedures in the Sixth Circuit related to: (1) obtaining standing to pursue causes of action on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, and (2) the standing of potential defendants to oppose orders granting authority to pursue causes of action against them.

Increasingly, struggling businesses are opting to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a vehicle to sell substantially all of their assets. This is because Chapter 11 debtors can sell assets under uniquely buyer-friendly conditions. The last several years have revealed a clear trend in favor of quick liquidation by sale motion. As businesses continue to falter and fail due to the continuing financial crisis, it is likely that liquidations by Chapter 11 sale motion will continue to gain popularity.

Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which was added to the Code pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Ace of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), creates an administrative claim in favor of pre-petition suppliers of goods under certain circumstances. From the time of its enactment, courts and practitioners have sought clarity regarding the correct interpretation of key elements of this section of the Code. This article examines the concept of the date of "receipt" of goods for purposes of §503(b)(9).