Ever since Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 to remedy the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 ruling declaring the jurisdictional groundwork of title 11 unconstitutional, there have been lingering questions regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to rule on the many matters and proceedings that must typically be resolved in a bankruptcy case. One of those questions—namely, whether the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over claims and assets with respect to which the court has granted relief from the Bankruptcy Code's "automatic stay"—was addressed by the U.S.

Executive Summary

As the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code approaches its 20-year anniversary, U.S. bankruptcy courts are still grappling with some unresolved issues concerning how its provisions should be applied to best harmonize cross-border bankruptcy cases. One of those issues was the subject of a bench ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

A main goal in bankruptcy is to get in and out as quickly as possible to minimize costs. It is often the case that even though a substantial portion of a debtor’s assets have been liquidated in bankruptcy, some valuable assets will remain that can provide additional sources of recovery to creditors. These assets may include smaller pieces of real estate, accounts receivable, joint venture ownership interests, and claims and causes of action, among others.

Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11's fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. And we are always looking for more input!

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

The current environment of higher interest rates and high inflation may have a deleterious effect on the retail industry. Although the fear of interest rates and inflation continuing to rise appears to have tapered off, both are still relatively high in comparison to the past twenty-year period. Each on its own can have a negative impact on the retail industry, and unfortunately, both combined can present enough challenges to a retail businesses to force them to change strategies for long-term survival.

When a company files for bankruptcy, its creditors often ask the same question: will I get paid? The answer, in part, depends on the priority and proposed treatment of each creditor's claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., who gets paid and in what order).1 In addition to the Bankruptcy Code's other provisions affecting the priority of a claim, the doctrines of recharacterization and equitable subordination can affect the priority of a challenged claim by effectively postponing or eliminating payment on the claim.

Recharacterization

Be careful when you sell intellectual property (“IP”) in return for future royalty payments. You may think your contract is airtight, guaranteeing you a future annuity on the sales of product relating to your IP, but that might not be the case if your buyer files for bankruptcy.