In re Corporateand Leisure Event Productions, Inc.,1 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona held that a state court lacks the power to enter an order in a receivership proceeding preventing the receivership defendant from filing a petition in bankruptcy.

In a recent ruling likely to be of great interest to debtors and creditors alike, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Court”) ruled in MC Asset Recovery v. Southern Company1 (the “Southern Co. Litigation”) that fraudulent transfer claims held by a bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession under the Bankruptcy Code continue to be viable at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case, even if all creditors’ claims have already been satisfied in full pursuant to a plan of reorganization.

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)

A recent ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California endorsed a path toward enforceability of prospective waivers of the automatic stay in certain circumstances. In short, such a waiver approved in a bankruptcy case may be enforceable in a subsequent bankruptcy case. This offers creditors a tactical opportunity to significantly better their position in such a subsequent case.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently considered the issue of whether a Chapter 7 trustee may bring a cause of action against a debtor for damages caused to the bankruptcy estate by the debtor’s alleged failure to comply with the debtor’s duties under section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code.