Late last week, Judge Shelley C. Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York heard arguments from a number of parties regarding whether the New York bankruptcy court is the proper venue for Patriot Coal Corporation’s bankruptcy cases. In re Patriot Coal Corp., Case No. 1:12-bk-12900. Judge Chapman did not rule on the venue question from the bench. Instead, the parties will wait for a ruling while proceeding with the bankruptcy case.

In 2012, several judicial opinions have reminded directors, officers and “responsible persons” that personal liability may be imposed for business taxes. See our alert from June 20, 2012. Responsible persons are reminded again that not only will authorities impose liability for unpaid taxes of a business on individuals but that the imposition of such taxes may not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Jeffrey Marks, a partner in the Vorys Cincinnati office and a member of the commercial and finance group, authored this column about the decision from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Onkyo Electronics V. Global Technovations.  The column originally appeared in the September 17, 2012 edition of Bankruptcy Law360.

Case Study: Onkyo Electronics V. Global Technovations

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reiterated its position that the doctrine of equitable mootness should only apply if granting relief on appeal would undermine a consummated bankruptcy plan. In In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, the Third Circuit held that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania abused its discretion when summarily finding that the appeal at issue was equitably moot simply because the appellants failed to seek a stay and the debtors’ plan had been substantially consummated.

Olsen v. Heaver (In re Heaver), 473 B.R. 734 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012) –

The short story is that when a deed and mortgage are executed at the same time, but the mortgage is recorded before the deed, the recorded mortgage does not provide constructive notice and can be avoided in a bankruptcy – at least under Illinois law as interpreted by the Heaver bankruptcy court.

On August 31, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit published its first decision expressly adopting an abuse of discretion standard for reviewing equitable mootness determinations by district courts. In In re Charter Communications, Inc., the Second Circuit followed the Third and Tenth Circuits, while also reaffirming the Second Circuit’s rebuttable presumption of equitable mootness upon substantial consummation of a debtor’s plan.

On August 29, 2012, Contec Holdings, Ltd ("Contec") and various related entities filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Simultaneous with filing its bankruptcy petitions, Contec also filed with the Bankruptcy Court a declaration of the company's Chief Restructuring Officer in support of its first day motions (the "Declaration").  Contec was started in 1978 and provides repair services for cable and broadband operators.  The company services equipment such as cable set-tops, modems and satellite receivers.

Yesterday (September 12, 2012) the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas provided an excellent lesson on the need to know what sauce is going into the stew that governs privileged communications in bankruptcy proceedings.[1]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held on Aug. 3, 2012, that equitable considerations could not prevent a creditor's recouping amounts owed to it by a chapter 7 debtor. Terry v. Standard Ins. Co. (In re Terry), 2012 WL 3139364, *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2012). Reversing the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), the Eighth Circuit explained that "once a party meets the same-transaction test . . . a court should not impose an additional 'balancing of the equities' requirement" on the doctrine of recoupment. Id.

On June 28, 2012, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granting Ahapura Minechem Ltd.’s petition for recognition of its Indian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Armada v. Shah (In re Ashapura Minechem Ltd.), 2012 WL 2478467 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2012).