The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, applying New Jersey law, has held that a bankruptcy court properly rescinded an insurance policy where the application denied any knowledge of occurrences that might give rise to claims despite the company's knowledge that employees were stealing money from the company. In re Tri-State Armored Services, Inc., 2007 WL 1196558 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2007).
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.
On March 15, 2007, with Jones Day’s assistance as bankruptcy counsel, FLYi, Inc. (“FLYi”), Independence Air, Inc. (“Independence”) and their affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) obtained confirmation of their chapter 11 plan under the “cramdown” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The plan, which become effective on March 30, 2007, will distribute approximately $150 million to unsecured creditors. In ruling on confirmation of the plan, the U.S.
The ability to borrow money during the course of a bankruptcy case is an important tool available to a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”). Often times, the debtor’s most logical choice for a lender is one with an existing pre-bankruptcy relationship with the debtor. As a condition to making new loans, however, lenders commonly require the debtor to waive its right to pursue avoidance or lender liability actions against the lender based upon pre-bankruptcy events.
“Give ups” by senior classes of creditors to achieve confirmation of a plan have become an increasingly common feature of the chapter 11 process, as stakeholders strive to avoid disputes that can prolong the bankruptcy case and drain estate assets by driving up administrative costs.
SRZ's reorganization group recently helped a lender avoid a surcharge against its collateral for legal fees. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur N. Votolato of the District of Rhode Island handed the lender the important victory on July 5, 2007, after an earlier trial. In re California Webbing Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 1953018 (Bankr. D. R. I., 7/5/07). In a detailed 22-page opinion, Judge Votolato held that the lender never consented to the use of its collateral to pay the fees of counsel for a Chapter 11 debtor and the creditors' committee in its failed reorganization case.
In two related actions, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the proceeds of a D&O policy are not property of the debtor's estate and refused to grant an injunction requested by a trustee to prevent the directors and officers from consummating a settlement that would exhaust the policy limits.
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.