The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey rejected the pre-packaged bankruptcy plan presented by the debtors and asbestos claims representatives. In re Congoleum Corp., No. 03-51524, 2007 WL 328694 (Bankr. D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2007). In addition, the court rejected a plan proposed by a group of insurers. In re Congoleum Corp., No. 03-51524, 2007 WL 328700 (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2007).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts has denied injunctive relief requested by two bankruptcy trustees seeking to stay the prosecution and settlement of shareholder actions proceeding against various former officers and directors of a bankrupt corporation. In re Enivid, 2007 WL 806627 (Bankr. D. Mass. Mar. 16, 2007).

The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that Congoleum's pre-packaged bankruptcy plan settling asbestos claims is not enforceable against its insurers. The court found that the plan was unreasonable and that, under the terms of the plan, insurance obligations are not triggered because it was not shown that Congoleum was "legally obligated to pay" the claimants who would receive payments. Congoleum Corp. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. MID-L-8908-01 (N.J. Super. Ct. May 18, 2007).

The district court in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. v. American Capital Equipment, et al., No. 06-0891 (U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Pa. May 11, 2007), affirmed that Skinner Engine Company's insurers have standing to move to dismiss Skinner's chapter 11 bankruptcy case and to challenge its bankruptcy plan. However, the court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the insurers' motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, applying New Jersey law, has held that a bankruptcy court properly rescinded an insurance policy where the application denied any knowledge of occurrences that might give rise to claims despite the company's knowledge that employees were stealing money from the company. In re Tri-State Armored Services, Inc., 2007 WL 1196558 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2007).

A federal district court in Illinois has held that a policyholder failed to provide sufficient notice of circumstances that could potentially give rise to a claim to trigger coverage under a D&O policy where the policyholder informed the insurers that it was "contemplating" filing for bankruptcy and expected claims to be filed against its directors and officers. Chatz v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2007 WL 1119282 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2007).

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to hear a chapter 11 debtor's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, which the debtor filed after its chapter 11 plan had been confirmed and substantially consummated. Valley Historic Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, No. 06-1571,___ F.3d ___, WL 1439734 (4th Cir. May 17, 2007). This decision delineates the limits of bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over claims filed by the debtor after plan confirmation.

Background

While investors and lenders brace for the next wave of chapter 11 filings, those who are parties to intercreditor agreements need to take stock on how their relationship with their fellow creditors and the borrower may be impacted by a bankruptcy filing by the borrower. If the borrower is in financial extremes, the primary lender who is secured by all the business assets may be unwilling or unable to extend additional credit to the troubled borrower.

More than a year and a half has passed since the Bankruptcy Code was significantly revised pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) which became effective (with some exceptions) on October 17, 2005. While the full impact of BAPCPA will not be fully realized for years to come, it is already apparent that trade creditors stand to benefit significantly as a result of these amendments.

Expanded Administrative Expense and Reclamation Rights

In two related actions, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the proceeds of a D&O policy are not property of the debtor's estate and refused to grant an injunction requested by a trustee to prevent the directors and officers from consummating a settlement that would exhaust the policy limits.