Limiting the Effect of BAPCA
This article first discusses <i>In re Dana Corp.</i>, 351 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)(<i>'Dana I'</i>), in which the Southern District of New York bankruptcy court denied a debtor's proposed employee 'incentive' program. The article then highlights the differences between the program proposed in <i>Dana I</i> and the program approved by the Southern District of New York in <i>In re Dana Corp.</i>, 2006 WL 3479406 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) (<i>'Dana II'</i>). Finally, this article proposes options other than those utilized in the foregoing cases that might be available to bankruptcy practitioners in need of a way to ensure that their clients' top executives do not walk out the door.
Ad Hoc Committee Disclosure Requirements
An essential part of the Chapter 11 process is constructive dialogue and negotiation among all stakeholders involved in the bankruptcy case with a view toward building a consensus on the terms of a confirmable Chapter 11 plan. The Bankruptcy Code establishes a framework to promote such interaction by providing for the appointment of official committees of creditors and shareholders entrusted by statute with the duty to participate in the formulation of such a plan.
Southern California's First Asbestos Bankruptcy
Litigation involving asbestos, which was used for decades as a fire retardant in many products, has littered the legal landscape for years. Several major companies have over the course of the last several years filed for bankruptcy as a result of the onslaught of this litigation. Since the 1980s, many asbestos manufacturers, including Johns Manville, declared bankruptcy under the weight of liability payouts. To date, an estimated 85 companies have filed for bankruptcy claiming asbestos liabilities as the cause. A Rand Institute for Civil Justice report indicates that more than 730,000 asbestos claims have been filed since the early 1970s. Roughly 200,000 claims are still pending in state and federal courts nationwide. Estimates predict that up to 2.4 million claims still may be filed before asbestos litigation finally runs its course.
When Trade Vendor Priority Claims Get Paid
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued one of the first decisions in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to interpret ' 503(b)(9), an important new Bankruptcy Code provision passed under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA): <i>In re Bookbinders' Restaurant Inc.</i> ' 503(b)(9) is certain to impact the relationship between a debtor seeking to reorganize and the trade vendors that deal with it.
Exchange-Traded Solvency Derivatives
In the last ten years, the credit derivatives market has grown from its infancy to approximately $26 trillion of notional value according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ('ISDA'). The most highly utilized type of credit derivative, the credit default swap, is used by investors to bet on a company's creditworthiness or hedge a position in a fashion that protects against the company's failure to make a payment or satisfy other terms.
Paddling Down Esopus Creek
An end-of-year (Nov. 29) Delaware Chancery Court decision, <i>Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf</i>, is receiving a great deal of attention from corporate transactional and corporate restructuring attorneys alike. In Esopus, the Delaware Chancery Court prevented a financially sound company that was prohibited by federal securities law from holding a shareholder vote, because it failed to meet its reporting requirements, from executing an agreement outside of bankruptcy to sell substantially all of its assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code without first obtaining common stockholder approval as required under Section 271(a) of the Delaware General Company Law ('DGCL').
Predicting Bondholder Activism
The image of bondholder activism in many quarters is one of rapacious bondholders aggressively pursuing a ruthless quest for returns. The reality is far more complex, but the outcome of particular cases may be surprisingly predictable for the astute analyst.
Can the Enron Claims Trading Issues Be Avoided?
Claims trading has become a part of the bankruptcy fabric as a short-term investment vehicle and a long-term opportunity with the intention of obtaining a strategic position in the confirmation process. It is now clear that the acquisition of a claim carries certain baggage, including the opportunity to be sued for actions that relate to the claim or other types of avoidance actions which can significantly delay the distribution on the claim. The baggage associated with a transferred claim has been articulated by Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez in the Enron cases, where he held that a transferee's claim against a bankrupt's estate can be subordinated or disallowed solely because of the transferor's misconduct or failure to return avoidable transfers even when there is no finding of wrongdoing or receipt of avoidable transfers by the transferee.
