Search

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in <i>Hefta v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors</i> (<i>In re Am. Classic Voyages Co.</i>), 405 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2005), recently addressed the issue of whether informal proofs of claim may satisfy a creditor's obligation to file a proof of claim under Rules 3001 and 5005 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The court held that a letter sent by the creditor's attorney to the debtor's claims agent stating that the creditor had sustained a workplace injury and had a claim against the debtor did not qualify as a proof of claim to satisfy Bankruptcy Rules 3001 and 5005. The court held that the bankruptcy court properly denied the employee's motion for relief from the automatic stay to prosecute his claim and the motion to file a late claim.

Consider the following scenario. A manufacturing company is experiencing significant financial and operational difficulties. A lender provides it with $20 million secured by a second priority lien and, in connection with this financing, is given two seats on the manufacturer's board of directors. For the next 3 years, the manufacturer continues to suffer losses and the lender continues to extend additional financing. By the third year, the lender has selected three of the company's four board members. At this point, the manufacturer is insolvent, undercapitalized and no disinterested third party will lend it additional money. Nevertheless, the lender extends new financing. No notes are issued for portions of this financing, and the lender does not obtain a valuation to determine whether the manufacturer has collateral to support the new financing. Then the lender, not management, negotiates a sale of the company to occur in the context of a pre-negotiated bankruptcy, with the lender to acquire more than 30% of the stock in the newly formed buyer. The manufacturer files a bankruptcy petition and immediately moves for approval of the sale. The buyer credit bids the lender's claim at the section 363(b) sale, and acquires the company's assets over the objection of the creditors' committee. Should the lender's third-year advances -- made while the company was insolvent and undercapitalized and at a time when no disinterested third party would lend money -- be recharacterized as equity? After examining all of the facts and circumstances, the Third Circuit answered no.

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

The sale of a debtor's assets through a bankruptcy court supervised auction process has become more commonplace and, some theorize, under the amended law, may increase in popularity. Often, the process includes the use of a "stalking horse" agreement establishing a baseline of price and other terms for the sale of the assets. In return, the stalking horse bidder obtains certain bid protections (<i>ie</i>, break-up fees and/or expense reimbursements). At the close of the auction, either the stalking horse bidder either places the highest initial (or competing) bid or is outbid, maintaining a claim for the bid protections.

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Last month, we reported on two recent Delaware cases that came to opposite conclusions as to whether a bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims asserted by a post-confirmation litigation trust: <i>IT Litigation Trust v. D'Aniello, et al.</i> (<i>In re: IT Group, Inc., et al.</i> held that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over such claims, while <i>Shandler v. DLJ Merchant Banking, Inc., et al.</i> (<i>In re Insilco Technologies, Inc.</i>)(<i>Insilco</i>) held that it did not. After the article went to press, the Delaware courts weighed in on the subject for the third time in only 3 months. This article provides the update.

As anyone who has advised a private equity fund in connection with the potential insolvency of one of its portfolio companies knows, reconciling the duty of the fund's designated directors sitting on the portfolio company's board with the fund's duties to its investors can feel like a high wire act at times. As fiduciaries for its investors, the fund's managers must act in a manner consistent with maximizing the return on invested funds. Yet, these same managers are often directors of the fund's portfolio companies. While a portfolio company is thriving, the duties to the fund's investors and the fund manager's duties as a director of the portfolio company are typically in harmony. However, when the portfolio company's business turns sour, and it approaches insolvency or is insolvent, the shifting of the directors' fiduciary duties to the company's creditors can cause irreconcilable conflicts of interest along with consternation on how to fund ongoing operations. This article discusses possible structural mechanisms to address and potentially avoid these irreconcilable conflicts while still maintaining the ability to manage the fund's investment and fund the portfolio company's ongoing business.

More than 500 leaders and officials of the seven Change to Win federation unions met Nov. 17-19 in Las Vegas to strategize how to work together in organizing campaigns. Organizers, researchers, and communicators from each of the seven unions met to discuss campaigns and strategy to grow the labor movement. This marked perhaps the first time since the founding of the CIO in the 1930s that so many union officials met to discuss joint targeting and strategy.

Two recent bankruptcy opinions out of the Delaware Court, <i>IT Litigation Trust v. D'Aniella, et al.</i> (<i>In re: IT Group, Inc., et al.</i>), and <i>Shandler v. DLJ Merchant Banking, Inc., et al.</i> (<i>In re Insilco Technologies, Inc.</i>), each of which addresses post-confirmation bankruptcy court subject matter jurisdiction over state law causes of action, have potentially significant implications on both litigation in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and plan structure for Chapter 11 debtors.