The Third Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a blow to secured creditors in its recent decision holding that a debtor may prohibit a lender from credit bidding on its collateral in connection with a sale of assets under a plan of reorganization. In the case of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, No. 09-4266 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2010), the court, in a 2-1 decision, determined that a plan that provides secured lenders with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured interest in an asset is not required to permit credit bidding when that asset is sold.

IN RE: ALTHEIMER & GRAY (April 15, 2010)

In today’s difficult economic environment, it is vital for trade vendors faced with customers’ bankruptcies to have optimal strategies for collecting invoices for past shipments and protecting prior payments from being clawed back by a bankruptcy estate as preferences. The need for such strategies will only increase as record amounts of corporate debt mature. Nelson D. Schwartz, Corporate Debt Coming Due May Squeeze Credit, N.Y.

federal court in New York has dismissed as moot an appeal filed by plaintiffs with products liability claims pending against General Motors Corp. (GM) before it was sold in bankruptcy. In re: Motors Liquidation Co., No. 09 Civ. 6818 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y., decided April 13, 2010). The plaintiffs sought to overturn a bankruptcy court’s approval of the automaker’s sale “free and clear” of their existing products liability claims as well as any successor liability claims they may have against the “new” GM.

A recent Delaware bankruptcy court decision1 on the ability of “bankruptcy remote” single-purpose entities emphasizes the complicated nature of the bankruptcy process and the issues that need to be considered when using “bankruptcy remote” entities in funding structures. Given the prevalence of such entities, this is an important decision for all participants in the structured fi nance industry.

In In re Kohls, 2007 LEXIS 76 (Bankr NDWVa 2007), the debtor filed this adversary proceeding against the Bank to cancel indebtedness and recover damages related to a $34,864 loan that the Bank made to the Debtor on the grounds that the loan was unconscionable at the time it was executed in violation of W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121.

On May 5, 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declaring that a party’s right to setoff in an ISDA Master Agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy unless strict mutuality exists. (Decision and Order).

A bankruptcy court recently held that in order for a supplier of goods on credit to establish an administrative claim under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) in the bankruptcy case of its buyer, the supplier will need to show that its buyer "physically" received the goods within 20 days prior to the buyer's bankruptcy filing, regardless of when title to the goods passed. In Re Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-35653, No. 7149 (Bankr. E.D. VA April 8, 2010).

On May 5, 2009, Judge James Peck, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases, held that the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not override the mutuality requirements for setoff under section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a consequence, the Bankruptcy Court prohibited Swedbank, a non-debtor counter party to a swap agreement, from setting off pre-petition claims against Lehman against funds collected for Lehman’s account postpetition. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-13555 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

According to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, a lack of bad faith is no longer a defense to court sanctions for failure to produce documents in a timely manner. That court, in In re A&M Florida Properties II, recently awarded sanctions against both a party and its counsel for the counsel’s failure to become familiar with the client’s email and data-retention policies and systems— despite the absence of any bad faith or willful delay.1