LLC organizers sometimes refer to themselves loosely as “partners” during the preliminary stages of a development project, before they get around to forming their limited liability company, but those words can come back to haunt them. Say, for example, that during the pre-formation phase, one of the organizers signs a contract in his own name, intending that the LLC carry out the contract. The LLC is formed, but then the project doesn’t go forward, the parties fall out, and the organizer that signed the contract can’t pay.

In Green Tree Serv., LLC v. DBSI Landmark Towers LLC,1 a case that is significant for landlords and leasing attorneys, the Eighth Circuit recently held that a subtenant of commercial office space was permitted to vacate its leased premises after the rejection of the master lease and sublease by the debtor-sublandlord, notwithstanding an attornment provision in the sublease requiring the subtenant to attorn2 to the landlord when the landlord either terminates the master lease or otherwise succeeds to the interest of the sublandlord under the master lease.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a cross-affiliate netting provision in an ISDA swap agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy. In the SIPA proceedings of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI), UBS AG (UBS) sought to offset UBS’s obligation to return excess collateral to LBI against claims purportedly owed by LBI to UBS subsidiaries, UBS Securities and UBS Financial Services.

The House Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony on the benefits and pitfalls of proposed legislation that would change bankruptcy venue rules by imposing limitations on where corporations may file for bankruptcy protection. The hearing came in the wake of a statement by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in which he asked how Enron had been able to file its bankruptcy case in Manhattan considering that Enron was based in, and had substantially all of its assets and operations in, Texas.

The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing to consider an amendment to the venue provisions of the Bankruptcy Code proposed by the Committee’s Chairman that would require corporations to file voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the district where they maintain their principal place of business or have their principal assets. Under the current bankruptcy venue provisions of the U.S. Code, a debtor corporation can file its bankruptcy case in the state where it is incorporated, where it has its principal assets, or where it is headquartered.

What a week for the food and restaurant industry!

The head of the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Consumer Protection Bureau, David Vladeck, recently questioned the planned sale of email addresses and other information for about 48 million consumers by Borders Group, Inc. (“Borders”) as part of that entity’s bankruptcy proceeding.3 In a public letter, Mr. Vladeck noted that the data held by Borders included records of merchandise purchased (video and books) that could be perceived as personal by many customers.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, Chapter 183C of the General Laws of Massachusetts, is preempted by the high cost home loan provisions of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) for federally chartered depository institutions. The July 27 ruling came in a case brought by Massachusetts residents who had jointly received a home mortgage loan from a national bank.

A secured creditor's option to credit bid its claim where its collateral is to be sold under a chapter 11 plan is an important protection to ensure that the creditor's collateral is not sold for less than its actual value. Rather than accepting the cash generated by a low bid, the creditor can submit its own bid, up to the amount of its secured claim, and recover its collateral instead. This traditionally recognized right was upset by two fairly recent circuit court decisions, one from the Fifth Circuit and one from the Third Circuit. In re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.