On January 31, 2008, less than two years after the institution of their bankruptcy cases, Dana Corporation and its affiliated debtor companies became one of the first large manufacturing entities with fully funded exit financing to emerge from chapter 11 under the recently revised Bankruptcy Code.

One of the significant changes brought about by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA") was the treatment of loans secured by automobiles in Chapter 13 cases. Prior to BAPCPA, debtors were permitted to "cram down" the secured portions of automobile loans to the fair market value of the collateral. This often resulted in significant reductions to claims secured by automobiles.

Directors and officers of troubled companies are already keenly cognizant of their potential liability for any breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence and fraud.

With the latest wave of bankruptcies sweeping the aviation and airline industries, you will find bankers and lawyers sweating over the priority and perfection of their aircraft liens. These bankruptcies seem to have a different character when contrasted with the bankruptcies of 2002 through 2004. Many of the 2008 bankruptcies are operational shut-downs and liquidations rather than restructurings. That means that the status of creditors (as secured or unsecured) is going to become acutely relevant and will determine how much the bankruptcy affects the creditor's financial outcome.

The question, “Can we get them to agree not to file bankruptcy in the future?” must be near the top of the list of questions clients most commonly ask their transactions and workout lawyers.

Most lawyers fielding this question are likely to explain that such an agreement is not enforceable under bankruptcy law. Good lawyers then suggest that in certain situations, an agreement for the entry of an order lifting the automatic bankruptcy stay, or an agreement not to oppose a lift-stay motion if the other side files a bankruptcy petition, may be enforceable.

With the possibility of a major stock brokerage liquidation appearing more likely than it has been in recent periods, the effect of a liquidation on customers and financial counterparties has become of great interest to many of our clients and others.

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.

On May 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. and ruled that debtors who sell property during the course of a Chapter 11 case prior to the confirmation of a plan cannot use Section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to exempt those sales from applicable state transfer and stamp taxes.

In Mukamal v. Bakes,1 the trustee of two trusts created under a chapter 11 plan of reorganization filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against the former directors and officers of the debtors, the dominant shareholders of the debtors and the debtors’ accounting firm, alleging, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties.

On June 16th, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on how debtors will sell assets in bankruptcy. InFlorida Department of Revenue v.