The Second Circuit in Krys v. Farnum Place (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.)¹ denied a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc by Appellee Farnum Place, LLC (Farnum), a hedge fund that sought to protect its purchase of a $230 million claim against the bankruptcy estate of Bernard L.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined[1] to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jaffé v.

On July 15, 2013, AgFeed USA, LLC, AgFeed Industries, Inc. and certain of their affiliates (collectively, the Debtors or AgFeed) filed their voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking to sell their assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code through an open auction process with approximately $79 million as a floor price set forth under an asset purchase agreement between AgFeed and The Maschhoffs, LLC (the Buyer).

The former customers of MF Global, Inc. (MFGI) can expect another round of distributions, resulting in a recovery for 4d customers of approximately 94–96 percent and for 30.7 customers of approximately 60–84 percent.

The Delaware District Court recently affirmed an appeal of an order denying millions of dollars in compensation to bankruptcy professionals due to certain provisions in a final debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing order. In re Barnes Bay Development Ltd. (“Barnes Bay”) was filed under Chapter 11 on March 17, 2011, case no 11-10792. On September 23, 2011, the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan.

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors.

Case Summary

On May 4, 2015, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors

Case Summary