On May 5, 2009, Judge James Peck, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases, held that the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not override the mutuality requirements for setoff under section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a consequence, the Bankruptcy Court prohibited Swedbank, a non-debtor counter party to a swap agreement, from setting off pre-petition claims against Lehman against funds collected for Lehman’s account postpetition. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-13555 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

1. Introduction

As a result of the failure of over 200 banks and savings institutions in 2009—and the likelihood of 300 or more failures in the foreseeable future—the banking industry may be faced with another tsunami of litigation brought by the FDIC alleging liability against officers and directors for the failure of their respective institutions.

With a growing number of projects facing financial difficulty, the importance of maintaining leverage for securing payment is greater than ever. The project itself remains a prime security target for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier for assuring appropriate attention is given to their claims and that payment will be forthcoming in a timely and unencumbered manner. Some very recent developments in the lien realm emphasize the ongoing attention that is being given to lien statutes and the opportunity they provide for maximizing those considerations of security and leverage.

In a recent decision in the Chapter 11 case of Project Orange Associates, LLC1, the court confronted an important issue that often arises in bankruptcy cases: whether the use of conflicts counsel is sufficient to permit court approval under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s choice for general bankruptcy counsel that also represents an important creditor of the debtor in unrelated matters. Here, the conflict involved the debtor's largest unsecured creditor and an essential supplier.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit has issued an opinion protecting and preserving a bank’s security interest in funds in the debtor’s bank account notwithstanding the fact that the bank released those funds to the trustee. In re Cumberland Molded Products, LLC, No. 09-8049 (6th Cir. B.A.P. June 23, 2010).

Intercreditor agreements between first and second lien lenders are created all the time and are therefore not usually glitzy topics for client updates. But the recent intercreditor dispute between Donald Trump and corporate raider Carl Icahn over control of Trump's Atlantic City casinos had all the drama and glamour of the gambling dens and billionaires involved, including two competing but confirmable plans and senior and junior creditors vying for ownership of a gaming empire and its attendant upside.

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a third party had submitted itself to jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,1 the Supreme Court ruled that a party who has not filed a claim against a bankrupt's estate is not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. A year later, in Langenkamp v.

Introduction

The recent decision in the case of In re Erickson Retirement Communities, LLC, 425 B.R. 309 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2010) provides ammunition for those opposing the appointment of an examiner in a debtor’s Chapter 11 case and a cautionary tale for lenders entering into subordination agreements.

On July 26, 2010, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in the published decision of Green Tree Servicing, LLC., v. Brian D. Brough, No. 88A01-0911-CV-550, addressed the issue raised by Appellant Green Tree as to whether the trial court erred by vacating its prior Order directing the parties to arbitrate their dispute, which involved a prior bankruptcy filing and a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on an issue of first impression inGreen Tree Servicing, LLC v. Brough, 930 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) that arbitration provisions in consumer loan agreements survive discharge in the borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding.