1. Introduction

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah has published the first opinion within the Tenth Circuit analyzing and authorizing the “structured dismissal” of a chapter 11 case. See In re Naartjie Custom Kinds, Inc., 534 B.R. 416 (Bankr.

Section 548(c) of the Bankruptcy Code entitles the recipient of a fraudulent transfer in certain circumstances to retain a lien on the property received through the debtor’s fraud if the transferee took the property in good faith and for value.

“The panic appears to be over. Now is the time to get worried.”
William Keegan (1938–), British author and journalist

A signed and recorded joint operating agreement (JOA) is often the first line of defense for an operator dealing with distressed partners.  For example, a JOA generally grants an operator a lien upon the oil and gas rights of a non-operator in default and may establish certain penalties that can be assessed against a party who does not pay their share of development.  But what happens when there is no JOA?

Section 109(e) of the Bankruptcy Code limits eligibility for chapter 13 relief to those individual debtors whose noncontingent, liquidated unsecured debts do not exceed statutory limits. In calculating eligibility to file chapter 13, should a court consider debts which have been discharged in a prior chapter 7 case and which are “out of the money” because, while secured by a trust deed against the debtor’s residence, the value of the debtor’s residence is insufficient to cover the debt relating to the first trust deed?

In analyzing the parameters surrounding a state law assignment for benefit of creditors, as well as the extent and limits of the powers of the assignee, the Eleventh Circuit inUllrich v. Welt (In re NICA Holdings, Inc.), 2015 WL 9241140 (11^th Cir. 2015) held that an assignee for the benefit of creditors lacks the authority to file a bankruptcy petition on behalf of the assignee.

The Bankruptcy Code contains a safe harbor for transactions that a debtor enters into after an involuntary petition is filed against it, but before an order for relief on the petition is entered.  See 11 U.S.C.

In its decision in Lazzo v. Bank (In re Schupach Investments, L.L.C.), 2015 WL 6685416 (10^th Cir. 2015), the Tenth Circuit sent a clear message to attorneys representing debtors-in-possession: make sure you have authority to represent the debtor if you want to be compensated from the estate.

In issuing its decision in Jubber v. SMC Electrical Products, Inc. (In re C.W. Mining Company), 2015 WL 4717709 (10^th Cir. 2015), the Tenth Circuit joined the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits in holding that a first-time transaction between the debtor and a creditor may qualify for the ordinary course defense of § 547(c).¹  In C.W.

The Ninth Circuit has overruled its own relatively recent decision and held that a debtor who sues for damages to redress a violation of the automatic stay may recover the reasonable fees it incurs in prosecuting the action, even after the stay violation is cured.

The Ninth Circuit has overruled its own relatively recent decision and has held that a debtor who sues for damages to redress a violation of the automatic stay may recover the reasonable fees it incurs prosecuting the action, even after the stay violation is cured.