A recent bankruptcy court decision in the Southern District of New York may raise concern among brokerage firms who execute and clear brokerage transactions for hedge funds and similar investment vehicles. The bankruptcy trustee of the Manhattan Investment Fund (which the court found to be a Ponzi scheme and whose principal Michael Berger pled guilty to criminal charges) obtained summary judgment against Bear Stearns requiring it to return to the bankruptcy estate all the margin payments the fund had made in the year before it imploded, totaling $141.4 million.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin lifted a hold on a bankruptcy court order approving Adelphia Communications’ Chapter 11 reorganization plan, thereby enabling Time Warner Cable (TWC) to proceed Tuesday with plans to transform itself into a publicly-traded company. Although U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Gerber signed off on Adelphia’s reorganization plan on January 3, Scheindlin—at the behest of bondholders who objected to the plan—had blocked implementation pending review of the bondholders’ claims.

Entities doing business with a customer that files for bankruptcy protection generally have the right to refuse to continue providing goods or services to the chapter 11 debtor, unless such goods or services are covered by a continuing contract, in which case any forfeiture of the debtor’s rights under the agreement is generally prohibited to afford the debtor a reasonable opportunity to decide what to do with the contract.

A debtor’s exclusive right to formulate and solicit acceptances for a plan of reorganization during the initial stages of a chapter 11 case is one of the most important benefits conferred under the Bankruptcy Code as a means of facilitating the successful restructuring of an ailing enterprise. By giving a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession time to devise a solution to balance sheet and operational problems without being burdened by the competing agendas of other stakeholders in the bankruptcy case, exclusivity levels the playing field, at least temporarily.

A company’s failure to meaningfully market its assets led to the dismissal of its attempted chapter 11 reorganization. As a result, a Massachusetts court held in a detailed opinion that an acquiring company was the successor to the company it acquired, and therefore liable for an $8.8 million debt.

In Litton Loan Servicing, LP v. Garvida, No. 04-17846 (9th Cir. BAP July 31, 2006), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit addressed two independent but related questions: (1) what procedure is necessary to object to a properly filed proof of claim, and (2) who bears the burden of proof, and the correlative risk of nonpersuasion, with regard to a disputed claim.

Following the rule that swap agreements should be netted after contract termination, a New York bankruptcy court has held that such agreements also should be netted following rejection in bankruptcy.

“Although rejection of an agreement does not equal termination,” Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez acknowledged in In re Enron Corp., 349 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2006), “this does not affect the determination of…rejection damages. Termination of swap agreements generally requires that the parties’ positions be netted.”

“Rejection leads to a similar result,” he stated.

The ability of a creditor whose claim is “impaired” to vote on a chapter 11 plan is one of the most important rights conferred on creditors under the Bankruptcy Code. The voting process is an indispensable aspect of safeguards built into the statute designed to ensure that any plan ultimately confirmed by the bankruptcy court meets with the approval of requisite majorities of a debtor’s creditors and shareholders and satisfies certain minimum standards of fairness.

One of the most significant considerations in a prospective chapter 11 debtor’s strategic pre-bankruptcy planning is the most favorable venue for the bankruptcy filing.

As part of the 2005 revisions of the Bankruptcy Code, Congress greatly enhanced the priority of claims asserted by suppliers of goods to debtors in the 20-day period immediately prior to a debtor’s bankruptcy filing by enacting new section 503(b)(9). This new provision raises several interesting issues, some of which were addressed by two recent cases examining the question of when such claims are to be paid.

The Language of Section 503(b)(9)