Introduction

In Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In re Oneida Ltd.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed whether a premium payment created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“DRA”)2 for pension plans terminated as part of a chapter 11 restructuring is a pre-petition claim or a post-petition administrative expense. The Court held that the statutorily mandated premium payment was a contingent pre-petition claim and was discharged upon confirmation of the debtor’s plan.

January 8, 2008 A Delaware bankruptcy court decided on Friday that mortgage servicing rights could be severed from a mortgage loan repurchase agreement that fell within applicable safe harbors of the Bankruptcy Code, at least where the loans were transferred “servicing retained.” The decision isCalyon New York Branch v. American Home Mortgage Corp., et al. (In re American Home Mortgage Corp.), Bankr. Case No. 07-51704 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 4, 2008).

On January 14, 2014, Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Weisfelner v. Fund 1. (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.), Adv. Proc. No. 10-4609 (REG), 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan.

On August 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated a series of bankruptcy court rulings that had blocked Vitro SAB’s noteholders from filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions against Vitro’s non-debtor subsidiary guarantors.  In a decision authored by Chief Judge Sidney A.

On May 4, 2012, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York held that the Bankruptcy Court has the injunctive power to enforce the automatic stay against entities falling within the Bankruptcy Court’s in personam jurisdiction, and that, in this case, the enforcement of the automatic stay did not violate interests of comity.  Sec. Investor Prot. Corp v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC), No. 11 Civ. 8629 (JPO), 2012 WL 1570859 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2012).  

When selling assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code or pursuant to a plan, debtors typically conduct auctions, selecting the highest or best bidder as the purchaser. Section 363 auctions are intended to enable debtors to maximize the value of their assets, while ensuring "finality and integrity in the process . . . ."1

A creditor’s ability to vote on a plan of reorganization is one of its most fundamental rights in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. For strategic investors in distressed debt, the power to vote—and potentially control a voting class (or obtain a blocking position in that class)— can be a critical tool in maximizing value and return on investment. Investors should be aware, however, that a recent decision by Judge Robert E.

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

In ABN Amro Bank N.V. v. Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A. (In re Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A.),1 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of an injunction pursuant to former section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code (the precursor to current chapter 15, applicable in crossborder insolvency proceedings), which prevented the beneficiary of a guaranty governed by New York law from asserting its guaranty claim against Italian debtor (and guarantor) Parmalat S.p.A. (“Parmalat”) in the United States.

In March 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided In re Airadigm Communications, Inc. (Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. FCC),1 a case that built upon the Supreme Court’s decision in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications, Inc (“NextWave”).2 In NextWave, the Supreme Court held that the FCC’s participation in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.