In Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Moran Towing Corp. (In re Bethlehem Steel Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that preferential transfer claims were not arbitrable. The Court reasoned that because the avoidance powers did not belong to the debtor, but rather were creditor claims that could only be brought by a trustee or debtor-in-possession, they were not subject to the arbitration clauses in contracts to which the creditors were not parties.

The Dispute and the Arbitration Clauses

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has approved a settlement agreement between three Sea Containers companies, their unsecured creditors and the trustees of the two pension schemes belonging to the UK subsidiary Sea Containers Services Limited.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the September 15 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in New York by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI) represents the single largest insolvency proceeding in US history. With assets and liabilities of more than US$639 billion, the LBHI filing dwarfs the previously largest US bankruptcies. The filing comes at a time of significant destabilization in US capital markets and has global ramifications. In an effort to keep our clients abreast of the LBHI situation, we are providing the following general update of significant events in the proceedings:

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a mortgage purchaser’s Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay of Chapter 13 proceedings on the ground that the purchaser lacked standing where it could not provide documentary evidence showing each transfer of the mortgage. In re Robin Hayes, Case No. 07-13967-JNF (August 19, 2008).

In November 2004, the Debtor, Robin Hayes, obtained a $324,000 mortgage from Argent Mortgage Company LLC (“Argent Mortgage”). The mortgage subsequently was sold and ultimately ended up with Deutsche Bank.

October 17, 2008 marked the third anniversary of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). This sweeping bankruptcy reform was designed to eliminate bankruptcy as an option for many would-be filers. While there is no doubt BAPCPA impacted bankruptcy filings both nationally and in West Virginia, recent trends suggest filings are on the rise and could reach pre-BAPCPA levels in the foreseeable future.

The 2005 Boom

The recent downturn in the financial sector and related bankruptcy filings have shed light on issues involving executive compensation, particularly in chapter 11 cases. Specifically, bankrupt companies often have paid substantial bonuses to executives prior to filing for bankruptcy protection and desire to retain those executives throughout the bankruptcy process through additional bonus payments and similar schemes. These types of payments have been criticized as giveaways to management.

Bankruptcy Court Hearing Regarding Sale of Lehman’s Investment Management Division

Over the past several weeks, several additional Lehman Brothers affiliate entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. For procedural purposes, these bankruptcy petitions will be jointly administered along with the petition filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., the lead debtor. These entities include:

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection, commencing the largest bankruptcy case in U.S. history. Initially, it appeared that many of the operating subsidiaries would remain outside of bankruptcy, but during the past several days, many of them have filed bankruptcy petitions as well. As of this writing, a complete list of the bankrupt Lehman entities (collectively, “Lehman”) is as follows:

In In re Arch Wireless,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a creditor who asserted claims against the debtor in various correspondence between the parties was a “known” claimant of the debtor’s estate entitled to direct notice of the bar date by which it must file a proof of claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that publication notice was insufficient to inform the creditor of the bar date or of the terms of the confirmed plan, even though the creditor was generally aware of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.