In Hutson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

In In re City of Vallejo,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held recently that the City of Vallejo has the authority to reject its collective bargaining agreements with the city’s firefighters and electrical workers as part of its chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding without going through the process detailed in section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court determined that a municipality does not need to comply with the stringent requirements that corporations face when seeking to reject a collective bargaining agreement (a “CBA”).

A Louisiana District court finds that the filing of an allegedly time barred proof of claim by a creditor does not amount to a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. B-Real, LLC v. Rogers et al., 2009 WL 1405844 (M.D.La. May 19, 2009) (Ruling on Appeal)

A Louisiana District Court ruling provides that a creditor did not violate the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing what were alleged to be three time-barred proofs of claim based upon underlying debt allowed under Louisiana law.

Pending motions in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in General Growth Properties’ (GGP) bankruptcy case (Case No. 09-11977) are expected to shed new light on how courts may treat real estate special-purpose entities in bankruptcy and may also have implications for the efficacy of bankruptcy-remote SPE structures used in asset-backed securitization transactions.

Only twice has the U.S. Supreme Court spoken directly to environmental issues in bankruptcy – until now. Today the Supreme Court ruled that certain claims can in fact be barred by a bankruptcy court's channeling injunction. The case is particularly important in light of the major corporate bankruptcies now under way in the industrial sector, where environmental costs can drive the success or failure of a restructuring.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey,2 establishing an important precedent concerning the ability of bankruptcy courts to release claims against third party non-debtors in chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In the June 2009 issue of Cadwalader’s Restructuring Review newsletter, we introduced this case and considered the potential implications of a ruling on this important but unsettled topic.

Oil and gas producers in Texas and a handful of other states have had the comfort of believing that they held purchase money security interests against the production in the hands of first purchasers and proceeds of that production. Now, the law supporting that belief has come under fire.

A Florida bankruptcy court recently clarified what constitutes a contract to extend financial accommodations for the benefit of the debtor, and the circumstances in which those contracts could be assumed, rejected or terminated. In re Ernie Haire Ford, Inc., 403 B.R. 750 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”), entered an order on July 2, 2009 (the “Bar Date Order”), establishing September 22, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) as the deadline for the filing of claims against the Debtors (the “Bar Date”).

Lear Corporation and related U.S., Canadian, and Cayman Island affiliates (“Lear”) filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on July 7, 2009 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“Bankruptcy Court”). Lear intends to continue to operate its businesses while in bankruptcy. Other than certain Lear related entities based in Canada and the Cayman Islands, Lear’s non-U.S. subsidiaries do not appear to be included in Lear’s U.S. bankruptcy filing and apparently will continue to operate outside the supervision and jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.