A Supreme Court ruling this week should give creditors a powerful tool to collect their debts from debtors who try to transfer assets before seeking bankruptcy protection. The primary reason an individual may turn to personal bankruptcy is to protect assets from creditor collection while obtaining a “discharge” from debts. Such protection is increasingly necessary where an individual is being pursued by one or more creditors, particularly where those creditors may have obtained (or are about to obtain) judgments against the individual.

Introduction

Many landlords are very familiar with provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code dealing with assumption and rejection of leases. However, the particular consequences of lease rejection may not be as well known. For example, once a lease is rejected or deemed to be rejected, a landlord may not know its rights with respect to regaining possession of the leased premises. A recent case from a Florida bankruptcy court shed some light on this issue when it held that after a debtor has rejected a lease, the tenant must surrender the premises to the landlord.

Yesterday, we announced the results of our fourth annual Reuters HedgeWorld & Dykema Insolvency Outlook Survey, which provides an inside look at the distressed investing landscape through the eyes of 100 hedge fund managers.

In an opinion issued today, the Supreme Court held that debtors do not have the right to immediately appeal a bankruptcy court’s decision denying confirmation of a proposed reorganization plan. This decision resolves a circuit split, and confirms the balance of power between debtors and creditors in the plan confirmation process. As the Supreme Court explained, “the knowledge that [a debtor] will have no guaranteed appeal from a denial should encourage the debtor to work with creditors and the trustee to develop a confirmable plan as promptly as possible.”

Big Case for UCC Aficionados

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s recent decision in State Bank of Toulon v. Covey (In re Duckworth)Case Nos. 14-1561 and 1650 (7^th Cir. November 21, 2014) illustrates how a banker’s seemingly minor mistake in drafting secured loan documents granting a lien to secure a non-existent obligation can lead to avoidance of a lender’s security interest by the borrower’s bankruptcy trustee. 

On September 9, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that certain senior lenders were not entitled to the benefit of their indentures’ make-whole premiums, because they had voluntarily accelerated their notes.  As we have reminded our readers several times, careful drafting of what may seem like basic boilerplate provisions is important.  Seemingly benign stand-alone provisions may have unintended consequences when linked together in a single agreement.

In earlier posts, we discussed rulings by two bankruptcy courts, one in Delaware and one in Virginia, in which the potential chilling e

Bankruptcy Remote? Maybe Not