Judge Kevin Gross of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware handed down an important ruling last week that turned aside most of an unusual challenge to the fees and expenses of an indenture trustee in the long-running Nortel chapter 11 case. The dispute has been watched closely by financial institutions that serve as trustees on bond issuances. (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP represented a large creditor in the Nortel case but took no part in the issues discussed here).

Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled. Stern significantly reduced the authority of bankruptcy courts, and bankruptcy judges and practitioners both have since been grappling with the ramifications of that decision.

Fisker Automotive’s chapter 11 case began in what has become a depressingly familiar fashion – a fast-tracked sale to a secured lender.  However, two rulings by Judge Kevin Gross of the U.S.

Atari, Inc., the creator of the primordial video game “Pong”, filed for Chapter 11 yesterday in the U.S.

We have been following the saga of the case brought by Irving Picard, the trustee overseeing the Bernard Madoff bankruptcy liquidation proceeding, against the owners of the NY Mets, Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon.

 On December 7, the FCC adopted a consent decree with an international carrier resolving several alleged transfers of FCC authorizations without prior approval.  This marks the latest in a series of enforcement actions in the area of ownership violations.  Many of these involve carriers providing foreign terminations.   The consent decree underscores the importance for all regulated carriers to monitor changes in ownership, even pro forma changes, and to seek prior FCC approval for the changes. 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. (May 11, 2011)

COSTELLO v. GRUNDON (October 18, 2010)

As the nation hunkers down to combat the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bankruptcy courts throughout the country have moved quickly to implement procedures to preserve access to the courts while limiting in-person interaction during the crisis. Each court’s specific COVID-19 procedures are different, but they largely prohibit in-person hearings, recognize the need for flexibility and adjournments for non-emergent matters whenever possible, and encourage the creative use of technology to allow as many matters to go forward as scheduled, including evidentiary hearings.

Judge Christopher Sontchi recently issued an important opinion in the Molycorp chapter 11 case.