Reclamation claimants have long enjoyed special protections under Bankruptcy Code section 546(c), which recognizes that “the rights and powers of a trustee... are subject to the right of a seller of goods,” including reclamation rights under Section 2-702 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At a minimum, Section 2-702 clearly requires that a reclamation claimant must make demand upon its buyer in order to reclaim its goods and protect its rights. However, Paramount Home Entertainment Inc. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 3522089 (ED Va., Sept.

What you need to know

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that where a medical malpractice claim is transferred from an insolvent insurer to the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, the Fund is liable for the statutory cap of $299,999 for each of the multiple claims arising from one overall medical incident, subject to the policy’s aggregate limits.

What you need to do

Rea v. Federated Investors, 2010 WL 5094250 (3d Cir., December 15, 2010) – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a provision in the Bankruptcy Code which prohibits private employers from “terminat[ing] the employment of, or discriminat[ing] with respect to employment” against an individual who had previously declared bankruptcy, doesnot create a cause of action against a private employer who declines to hire based upon an applicant’s previously declared bankruptcy. Analyzing the bankruptcy provision at issue, 11 U.S.C.

Introduction

In January of this year, George L Miller, the chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") in the WL Homes bankruptcy, began filing avoidance actions against various creditors. As alleged in the complaints, the Trustee seeks the recovery of what he deems are "preferential transfers" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. This post will look briefly at the WL Homes bankruptcy, as well as provide information on common issues that arise in preference litigation.

Background on the Bankruptcy Proceeding

On February 7, 2011, in a highly anticipated decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that in Chapter 11 reorganizations, senior creditors may not “gift” recoveries to junior creditors and/or equity interest holders over the objection of an intervening class. In In re DBSD N.A., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 350480 (2d Cir. 2011), the majority ruled that such “gift plans” run afoul of the “absolute priority rule,” which is codified in Section 1129(b) of Bankruptcy Code. The decision has significant implications for future bankruptcy cases in New York.

For over 30 years, most bankruptcy courts have approved plans where the secured lender “gifts” a distribution to a junior class in order to obtain a consensual plan. These courts note that the distribution is from the secured lender’s property (not estate property) and the secured lender can do what it wants with its own property.

In the July/August 2010 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on an important ruling handed down by bankruptcy judge James M. Peck in the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases addressing the interaction between the Bankruptcy Code’s general setoff rules (set forth in section 553) and the Code’s safe harbors for financial contracts (found principally in sections 555, 556, and 559 through 562). In In re Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 433 B.R. 101 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2010 Term (which extends from October 2010 to October 2011, although the Court hears argument only until June or July) officially got underway on October 4, three days after Elena Kagan was formally sworn in as the Court’s 112th Justice and one of three female Justices sitting on the Court.

The Court of Chancery of Delaware ruled that counsel failed to establish "excusable neglect" when it requested additional time to submit an expert witness report after the deadline for that report—as provided for in the court's previously issued scheduling order—had expired.

Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank New York Branch, f.k.a. Calyon New York Branch v. American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc.), No. 09- 4295, 2011 WL 522945 (3d Cir. February 16, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT