In what is described as a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has determined that the portion of an employer’s withdrawal liability that is attributable to the period after the date of the petition for bankruptcy is an administrative expense and entitled to priority under bankruptcy law. In the particular case, the employer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on November 30, 2006. The employer participated in a multiemployer defined benefit plan. On May 30, 2008, the debtor sold its assets and ceased to employ any of the covered employees.

The United States Bankruptcy Code provides that any interest that a debtor holds in property as of the date of the debtor's bankruptcy filing becomes property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(1). In a chapter 7 bankruptcy case, a trustee will be appointed to, among other things, liquidate property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate for the ultimate payment of the debtor's creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(1).

In a recent decision1 involving TerreStar Networks, Inc., and its affiliates (“TerreStar” or the “Debtors”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Debtors’ noteholders held a valid lien on the economic value of a license granted to TerreStar by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and that nothing in Article 9 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (the “NYUCC”) or Section 552 of the Bankruptcy Code invalidated that lien.

A recent opinion from the Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina adds another chapter to the continuing saga of attacks lodged against the validity of deeds of trust encumbering real property owned by debtors.  In re Deuce Investments, Inc.

On August 24th, the Third Circuit issued an opinion warning lawyers of the hazards posed by over-reliance upon automated, computerized communications between counsel and client. In doing so, it reinstated an order sanctioning a lawyer and her law firm for making false filings with the bankruptcy court. In re: Niles C. Taylor.  

On August 15, 2011, Evergreen Solar ("Evergreen"), filed chapter 11 petitions for Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  According to the Declaration of Evergreen's CEO, Michael El-Hillow (the "Declaration" or "Decl."), filed in support of its bankruptcy petitions, Evergreen incorporated in Delaware in 1994 and manufactures "multi-cystalline silicon wafers."  The company uses its silicon wafers in the production of photovoltaic solar cells, which in turn are installed in solar panels under the Evergreen trade name.  Decl. at 3.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that an affiliate that held an indirect ownership interest in, and was a lender to, an employer could be liable for severance payments under the Federal WARN Act. In order for liability to apply to the affiliate, the affiliate and employer need to be found to constitute a "single employer" for Federal WARN Act purposes.

Lenders and mortgage holders may be surprised to learn that a New York bankruptcy court voided the foreclosure sale of non-debtor property where the debtor filed for bankruptcy with no legitimate intent to reorganize. In a case of first impression, In re Ebadi1 addresses a common scenario: a foreclosure action against multiple parties, including a borrower not in bankruptcy and a guarantor in bankruptcy.

In a decision that was not surprising but nevertheless disappointing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court concluding that the “net equity” calculation for distributions back to Madoff victims should be based on the Net Investment Method, the total of actual deposits and withdrawals, and not the last statement amount listed on the final brokerage account statement. As a result, claw back law suits against the inaptly named “net winners” are sure to continue unabated.

Background

Following the Second Circuit’s recent precedent in an Enron appeal (also the subject of a Basis Points blog post), Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that the redemption of notes prior to maturity was exempt from preference actions under the safe harbor provision of Bankruptcy Code § 546(e). Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., No. 08-10152 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2011).