It has long been the case that secured creditors could be charged for the reasonable and necessary costs incurred to preserve the value of their collateral.  This equitable principle emerges out of case law that predates not only the current Bankruptcy Code, but also its immediate predecessor, the Bankruptcy Act of 1938.  As now codified in section 50

Over the course of almost a decade of litigation as part of an individual debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy judge, in In re Tucker, made “half a dozen or so” comments about the debtor’s demeanor, credibility, and litigation strategy, including referring to the debtor as a “crook,” “dirty bird,” and a “skillful manipulator.”  The debtor filed a motion for recusal, arguing the judge

Two recent decisions from the District Court for the Southern District of New York have renewed interest in the Trust Indenture Act and the ability of minority bondholders to use it as a shield to protect their rights in an out-of-court nonconsensual restructuring:  Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v.

When a contract is called a lease and has some characteristics of a lease, but operates to grant the lessee the exclusive right to mine and remove coal from the premises, how should the contract be treated in bankruptcy?  In a 

A series of related decisions issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the ongoing Fairfield Sentry U.S. redeemer litigation — Fairfield Sentry II,¹Fairfield Sentry III,² and Fairfield Sentry IV³ — provide insight into, among other things, the interplay between the safe harbor provision of section 546(e)⁴ of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”) and chapter 15.

Introduction

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²

When a court reaches a decision in a case, the law of the case doctrine generally provides that parties should not be able to relitigate the same issue in that case, and for the court to adhere to its prior decision.1 The doctrine does not, however, apply to every decision a court reaches. Two recent decisions by Judge Elizabeth Stong in the Brizinova chapter 7 cases in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York explore when the doctrine may or may not apply in bankruptcy cases.

Section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code grants secured creditors the right to credit bid up to the full amount of their claim as a form of currency to bid to purchase assets securing their claim from a debtor in connection with a stand-alone sale of assets under section 363(b). In a recent opinion from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Aerogroup International, Inc., Judge Kevin J.

Good news: structured dismissals have survived Supreme Court scrutiny. Bad news: dismissals may be harder to structure, given yesterday’s 6-2 decision overruling the Third Circuit in Jevic narrowing the context in which they can be approved. We now have guidance on whether or not structured dismissals must follow the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. The short answer is that they must.