When a bankruptcy court ‘‘recharacterizes’’ debt, it causes something the parties have identified as debt to be converted into equity. Unlike an equitable subordination analysis, in which courts determine whether an acknowledged claim should be subordinated to that of other creditors due to a creditor’s inequitable conduct, a recharacterization analysis involves determining whether a debt actually exists.

The courts continue to pick away at the “unfinished business rule.” The latest blow came earlier this month when a U.S. district court dismissed a Chapter 7 trustee’s claims against eight law firms who provided services to former clients of Howrey LLP. We are getting close to the point where the unfinished business rule may in fact be finished.

A recent English High Court decision has further clarified the position on what amounts to an “abuse of process” when it comes to determining the motive behind the presentation of a winding up petition by a creditor. The High Court has ruled that only where a petition is issued for a purpose other than to ensure the equitable winding-up of a debtor company can it be considered an “abuse of process”, and goes on to outline what may constitute such an abuse.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (PwC) won another victory in the MF Global litigation when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by former commodities customers (the “Customers”) of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”). This holding is important for its clear affirmation of the in pari delicto doctrine and as a visible limitation on claims by parties not in privity.

Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code permits the subordination of certain claims to all claims or interests senior or equal to the security on which the claim is based. A recent Fifth Circuit opinion delineates the scope of mandatory subordination under Section 510(b).

Last week, in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (May 26, 2015), the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court can enter final judgment on “non-core” claims under 28 U.S.C. § 157 if the parties consent to that court’s jurisdiction.  It overturned a decision by the Seventh Circuit that relied heavily on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Waldman v.

In the ongoing RadioShack (RS) bankruptcy case, a Delaware bankruptcy court took a first look at the enforceability of Agreements Among Lenders (AALs), the contracts governing the often-times complicated relationships among lenders with different risk and yield appetites yet which reside in one credit agreement.  While the RS bankruptcy court provided long-awaited guidance on some aspects of AALs in its recent oral ruling, much has been left to the continued imaginations of those who dream of buy-out rights, waivers of voting rights and the other power-shifting mechanisms in AALs.

How far do the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions extend in the commercial mortgage-backed securitization (CMBS) market? Do these safe harbor provisions protect financial institutions that act merely as conduits for CMBS payments? These questions were addressed recently by the Northern District of Illinois District Court, and the court’s decision provides ammunition for CMBS investors in clawback claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.

San Bernardino’s Chapter 9 case is back in the news. On May 18, the City Council approved the City’s proposed exit plan for filing with the Bankruptcy Court in a 6 to 1 vote. San Bernardino’s plan is challenging to say the least and certainly consistent with Judge Jury’s January comment that “sometimes you have to get ugly to get pretty.” The plan reflects the City’s “Gordian Knot” of financial obligations to bondholders, employees and retirees, and the City’s need to deliver essential services to residents without raising taxes beyond the breaking point.

In a case that could have upended the bankruptcy and magistrate court systems, the Supreme Court took a pragmatic approach yesterday when it held in Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif that with “knowing and voluntary consent” of the parties, a bankruptcy court could adjudicate a so-called “Sternclaim,” which would otherwise be outside the scope of its constitutional power.  The Court’s 2011 ruling in Stern v.