On October 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit overruled what many thought to be well-settled law, and held that a bankruptcy trustee does not have standing to pursue alter ego claims, at least in cases governed by California law. The court first held that California state law does not recognize a general alter-ego cause of action that allows an entity and its equity holders to be treated as alter egos for purposes of all of the entity’s debts.

In a much-followed case given the recent publicity surrounding collapsed Ponzi schemes, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 17, 2010 reversed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court from the Southern District of New York that had broadened the scope of those facts and circumstances that may trigger inquiry notice under the "good faith" defense to a fraudulent conveyance claim. In re Bayou Group, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99590 (S.D.N.Y. September 17, 2010).

Recently, over 180 adversary actions were filed in the MPC Computers bankruptcy. The adversary actions fall generally in to two categories - preference actions filed by MPC's Committee of Unsecured Creditors and breach of contract actions filed by MPC. This post will look briefly at why MPC filed for bankruptcy and discuss what may happen next now that the adversary actions are underway.

Background on the MPC's Business and Events Leading to Bankruptcy

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court"), recently in In re Leslie Controls, Inc., Bankr. D. Del., Case No. 10-12199, expounded on whether attorney-client and attorney work-product privileged documents remained protected from discovery under the common interest doctrine. The common interest doctrine permits counsel representing different clients with similar legal interests to share information without having to disclose that information to others.

In September of this year, the Honorable Mary F. Walrath, the presiding Judge in the DHP Holdings bankruptcy, issued a decision addressing the effect of a forum selection clause when deciding a motion to change venue. This issue came before the court in an adversary action filed by DHP against The Home Depot. After DHP filed for bankruptcy, the company sued Home Depot for $5.5 million alleging Home Depot owed the company for an outstanding account receivable.

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit decided In re EDM Corp.,[1] affirming that a creditor’s priority in collateral may be sacrificed if the debtor’s exact legal name is not exclusively used in the financing statement.

In difficult economic times, debtors’ attorneys closely review credit reports looking for potential legal claims against creditors. Long after a debtor has been discharged from bankruptcy, creditors can find themselves defending claims of improper credit reporting. A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina illustrates the trouble facing creditors who furnish incorrect reports of discharged debt. See In re Adams (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2010).

In an October 19, 2010 opinion arising out of the Scotia Pacific bankruptcy cases, the Fifth Circuit ruled that reorganized Scotia and its affiliate Pacific Lumber Company were obliged – nearly 2½ years after Scotia’s reorganization plan was consummated – to pay Scotia’s former secured lenders approximately $30 million on account of a mistake made by the bankruptcy judge in calculating the amount owed to the secured lenders for the use of their collateral during the bankruptcy cases.

Last Thursday, a Delaware Bankruptcy Court disqualified two law firms from representing an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors based on their conduct in soliciting proxies from creditors who were not existing firm clients. In re Universal Building Products, No. 10-12453 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 4, 2010), involved an extreme fact pattern but it may nonetheless have a substantial effect not only on the selection of professionals for future Committees but also on the appointment of creditors to Committees, at least in Delaware.

When selling assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code or pursuant to a plan, debtors typically conduct auctions, selecting the highest or best bidder as the purchaser. Section 363 auctions are intended to enable debtors to maximize the value of their assets, while ensuring "finality and integrity in the process . . . ."1