Intercreditor agreements between first and second lien lenders are created all the time and are therefore not usually glitzy topics for client updates. But the recent intercreditor dispute between Donald Trump and corporate raider Carl Icahn over control of Trump's Atlantic City casinos had all the drama and glamour of the gambling dens and billionaires involved, including two competing but confirmable plans and senior and junior creditors vying for ownership of a gaming empire and its attendant upside.

In an interesting twist on a run-of-themill case regarding the personal liability of a corporate officer for unremitted sales taxes, the New York State Division of Tax Appeals held an owner (“Petitioner”) personally liable for sales tax even though the corporation was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was being run by a bankruptcy court-approved management company. In re Eugene Dinino, Docket Nos. 822605, 822606, 822607, 822608, 822609, 822610 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App. June 24, 2010).

Earlier this month, Bettina M Whyte, the SemGroup Litigation Trustee (the "Trustee") filed approximately 350 adversary actions against various creditors in the SemCrude bankruptcy. The majority of the adversary actions are preference actions under 11 U.S.C. section 547 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Some of the adversary actions, however, allege defendants received fraudulent transfers from various SemCrude debtors (the "Debtors").

A federal judge has ruled that directors and officers of a company in bankruptcy proceedings may continue to access an eroding liability policy to cover their defense costs. The court based its decision on a close examination of the policy language, and alternatively held that the individual directors and officers had shown they were entitled to relief from the automatic stay. In re: Downey Financial Corp., No. 08-bk-13041 (CSS) (Bankr.D.Del. May 7, 2010).

The question of what happens to an international arbitration when a party files for bankruptcy in the United States is arising with increasing frequency. In the United States, the public policy interests that underlie both bankruptcy and arbitration legislation sometimes clash on critical points. The federal courts have developed competing approaches to addressing these issues. This fractured caselaw introduces uncertainty at the intersection of arbitration and bankruptcy.

US Bankruptcy Code

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

A recent defeat by a student-loan creditor could turn out to be a victory for the industry overall.

On March 23, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided an important case concerning a student-loan creditor’s motion to void a bankruptcy court’s judgment.1 The creditor brought this motion after initiating collection efforts and in response to the debtor’s request to cease and desist those efforts.

SMITH v. SIPI, LLC (July 27, 2010)

In a decision filed on July 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court decision upholding a bankruptcy court order granting summary judgment to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (American Home) in connection with a repurchase transaction entered into in 2007 under which American Home sold certain certificates to Bear Stearns International Ltd. (Bear Stearns) for $19,534,000 and agreed to re-purchase the certificates at a later date for $19,636,879.07. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 2676383 (3d Cir.

On July 13, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in a landmark decision, that a plan sponsor which had the right to unilaterally terminate retiree benefits outside of bankruptcy could not exercise that same right during a bankruptcy proceeding. The case, IUE-CWA v. Visteon Corp. (In re Visteon Corp.), marks the first time that a Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a bankrupt employer in its attempt to unilaterally terminate non-vested retiree welfare benefits.