Yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.

Intercreditor agreements--contracts that lay out the respective rights, obligations and priorities of different classes of creditors--play an increasingly important role in corporate finance in light of the continued prevalence of complex capital structures involving various levels of debt. When a company encounters financial difficulties, intercreditor agreements become all the more important, as competing classes of creditors seek to maximize their share of the company's limited assets.

Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., No. 16-784 (2018)

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649 (2017)

Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, No. 14-103 (previously described in the October 2, 2014, Docket Report)

Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (previously described in the July 1, 2014, Docket Report)

Harris v. Viegelahn, No. 14-400 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14–116 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)

On June 9, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (“Executive Benefits”)¹ that resolved a fundamental bankruptcy procedural issue that had arisen in the wake of Stern v.