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.

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.

Late last night, after presiding over a three-day hearing on the matter last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order authorizing the sale of substantially all of the assets of General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”) under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Section 363 Sale”).

Citing a slowdown in its business caused, in part, by the recent global credit crunch, Sea Launch has filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Based in Long Beach, California, Sea Launch is owned by Boeing (40%) and by foreign partners that include RSC-Energia of Russia, Kvaener ASA of Norway, and SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash of the Ukraine. In addition to operating its seagoing launch platform in the equatorial waters of the Pacific Ocean, the company has started offering landbased launches from the Baikonur Space Center in Kazakhstan.

With the economic crisis leading to the failure of many businesses, bankruptcy cases are on the rise. In many of the cases grabbing headlines, such as Lehman Brothers, Nellson Nutraceutical, New Century and SemCrude, courts have shown a willingness to appoint examiners to investigate, report on and make recommendations regarding possible issues of mismanagement, fraud or other improprieties relating to the affairs of the debtor or its former or current management.

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.