A purchaser of assets from a debtor in bankruptcy may not be able to rely entirely on bankruptcy court approval of the sale to bar a claim arising long after the sale and based on a claimed defect in a product sold by the debtor years prior to its bankruptcy.

Although bankruptcy court sale orders routinely shield asset purchasers from successor liability claims, that protection is not unlimited, particularly where a claimant did not and could not have received notice of the sale.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. At first blush, this decision appears to provide the additional certainty that participants in the commodities markets require.

On December 29, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case In re Nortel Networks, Inc., holding that the "automatic stay" on creditor collection actions outside the bankruptcy applied to prevent the UK Pension Protection Fund and the Trustee of the UK Nortel Pension Plan from participating in UK pensions proceedings initiated by the UK Pensions Regulator.

In Seeley (Trustee of) v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2008), the Bankruptcy Court determined that the Superintendent’s Levy was payable on the amount paid to a secured creditor by a Trustee in bankruptcy.The bankrupt made an assignment into bankruptcy. He owned a cabin which was mortgaged to the Bank.

The Trustee sent the Bank three notices requiring it to file proof of its security. The Bank did not respond.The cabin was sold and subsequently the Bank filed a Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy.

On January 6, 2012, Judge Thomas Bennett of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the "Court") issued a 57-page opinion in the chapter 9 bankruptcy case of Jefferson County, Alabama (the "County") on several critical jurisdictionally related issues raised by the state court appointed receiver of the County's sewer system, the indenture trustee for the special revenue warrants for the sewer system (the "Indenture Trustee") and certain other joining creditors.

On November 25, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. (“LandAmerica”) filed a Chapter 11 petition in Virginia, seeking bankruptcy protection. By separate agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), LandAmerica agreed to sell Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”) to Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”) and Lawyers Title Insurance Company (“Lawyers”) and United Capital Title Insurance Company (“United”) to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”).

On February 10, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a memorandum decision addressing whether the alleged holder of a mortgage loan had sufficient status as a secured creditor to seek relief from the automatic stay to pursue a foreclosure action.1 After resolving the primary issue in controversy on purely procedural grounds and granting the requested relief, the Court analyzed whether an entity that acquires its interest in a mortgage loan through an assignment from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Late the night of Nov. 25, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, Inc., filed a Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ("Bankruptcy Court"), seeking bankruptcy protection for both entities. The action does not cover Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company or Lawyers Title Insurance Company, two LandAmerica subsidiaries that are each domiciled in the State of Nebraska.

The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Third Circuit") issued an opinion on February 16, 2011 in the American Home Mortgage chapter 11 proceeding that upheld a determination by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") on the valuation of a creditor’s claim that in connection with the termination and acceleration of a mortgage loan repurchase agreement.1 The decision is significant because the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision that the post-acceleration market value of the mortgage loans was not a relevant m

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("Lehman Holdings") filed for Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 08-13555). None of Lehman Holdings’ U.S. subsidiaries have filed for bankruptcy at this point. In addition, while Lehman Holdings has certain subsidiaries that are regulated entities (e.g., banks, insurance companies, etc.), none of those entities has yet been placed into any kind of insolvency proceeding by the applicable regulators.