A federal district court in Illinois has held that a policyholder failed to provide sufficient notice of circumstances that could potentially give rise to a claim to trigger coverage under a D&O policy where the policyholder informed the insurers that it was "contemplating" filing for bankruptcy and expected claims to be filed against its directors and officers. Chatz v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2007 WL 1119282 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2007).

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to hear a chapter 11 debtor's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, which the debtor filed after its chapter 11 plan had been confirmed and substantially consummated. Valley Historic Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, No. 06-1571,___ F.3d ___, WL 1439734 (4th Cir. May 17, 2007). This decision delineates the limits of bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over claims filed by the debtor after plan confirmation.

Background

On Friday, March 3, 2006, Dana Corporation and certain of its affiliated companies (collectively, “Dana") filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in New York. None of Dana's foreign incorporated affiliates are included in this bankruptcy petition and as such, any transaction with such affiliates should continue in the normal course. However, as a result of the bankruptcy filing, an automatic stay is in effect prohibiting creditors from seeking to take action to collect any amounts due to them from Dana which arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of estate property did not preclude the enforcement of an arbitration provision.

In re Foamex Int’l, Inc., et al.,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the damage cap contained in section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code applies not only to rental payments, but also to damages from the breach of any lease covenants, including maintenance and repair obligations. In doing so, the Court reduced a specific landlord’s claim and recovery by more than $700,000 and established precedent that could diminish the claims of landlords in other cases pending and filed in Delaware.

Background

Equitable mootness is a doctrine grounded in equity pursuant to which an appeals court will dismiss an appeal of a bankruptcy order — even if effective relief could conceivably have been granted — because the implementation of such relief (e.g., the reversal of a bankruptcy court order) would be inequitable to third parties. This doctrine may be applied to achieve the necessary finality of bankruptcy orders and decisions that is required to effectuate the successful, expedient reorganization of debtors in bankruptcy.2

In re Adelphia Communications Corp.,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that neither a creditor’s aggressive litigation tactics resulting in the creditor’s prospective receipt under a proposed plan of special consideration for voting in favor of the plan, which special consideration other members of the same class that voted against the plan would not obtain, nor the creditor’s ownership of claims in several debtors, in a multi-debtor Chapter 11 case, was a sufficient basis for the “draconian sanction” of disallowing such creditor’s votes

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Scotia Development, LLC,1 Judge Richard S. Schmidt denied the motions of several creditors and the State of California seeking transfer of venue from the Southern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, finding that venue was proper in Texas and that California would not be a more convenient forum for the financial restructuring of the debtors.

Background

On April 18, 2007, in Fla. Dep’t. of Rev. v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. (In re Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the stamp tax exemption of 11 USC § 1146(c)2 may apply to transfers of assets that were necessary to the consummation of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization and were made prior to confirmation of the plan. In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit declined to follow decisions of the Third and Fourth Circuits to the contrary and thus created a split among the circuits on this issue.

While investors and lenders brace for the next wave of chapter 11 filings, those who are parties to intercreditor agreements need to take stock on how their relationship with their fellow creditors and the borrower may be impacted by a bankruptcy filing by the borrower. If the borrower is in financial extremes, the primary lender who is secured by all the business assets may be unwilling or unable to extend additional credit to the troubled borrower.