The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Feb. 10, 2010, that a corporate debtor’s pre-bankruptcy severance payments to its former chief executive officer (“CEO”) were fraudulent transfers. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., ____ F.3d _____, 2010 BL 28145 (5th Cir. 2/10/10). Because of its holding “that the payments were fraudulent under the Bankruptcy Code,” the court did “not consider other possible violations, including [the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act] or [Bankruptcy Code] Section 547(b) [preferences].” Id. at *5.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Lehman Brothers (“LBI“) case under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA“) entered an order on Nov. 7, 2008 (the “Claims Bar Date Order“) establishing the following deadlines for the filing of claims against LBI:

Members of the ad hoc shareholders’ committee in the Northwest Airlines reorganization case lost their attempt on March 9 to seal “the amounts of claims or interest [they] owned …, the times when acquired, the amounts paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof.” So held Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Northwest Airlines Corp., following his earlier ordering of the disclosure of trading details.

“[T]he largely debt-financed purchase of a family-owned [business] was not a fraudulent [transfer] and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duty of the company’s directors,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Dec. 4, 2017. In re Irving Tanning Co., 2017 W.L. 5988834, *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 4, 2017).

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stayed the part of a bankruptcy court’s sale order that would have “stripped” a commercial tenant’s lease from the casino property being sold to a third party. In re Revel AC, Inc., 2015 WL 5711358 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2015) (2-1).

On Sept. 12, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny payment of a make-whole premium (the “Make-Whole Amount”) to bondholders under three separate indentures (the “Indentures”) based on the plain language of those agreements. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. AMR Corp. et al. (In re AMR Corp.), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4840474 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (“In re AMR Corp. II”).

On Aug. 30, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved the disclosure statement with respect to the revised second amended joint Chapter 11 plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”). The order approving the Debtors’ disclosure statement and establishing certain procedures related to the hearing to consider confirmation of the plan (the “order”) can be accessed here.

Break-up fees1 remain difficult for initial (or so-called “stalking horse”) bidders to obtain in the Third Circuit. In Kelson Channelview LLC v. Reliant Energy Channelview LP (In re Reliant Energy Channelview LP), No. 09-2074 (3d Cir. Jan.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed a motion in the bankruptcy court on Nov. 13, 2008, asking the court to approve procedures for (i) assuming (affirming) and assigning derivative contracts entered into before the Debtors commenced their bankruptcy cases, including resolving cure amounts; and (ii) entering into settlement agreements that may establish termination payments and the return of collateral under terminated derivative contracts.

Debtors’ Derivative Contracts

A court-approved pre-plan settlement that would have resolved a dispute between a Chapter 11 creditors’ committee and the debtor’s secured lenders over the lenders’ liens was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 5. Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Iridium Operating LLC). The settlement also would have funded massive litigation against the debtor’s former parent, Motorola Inc.

Motorola’s Successful Argument