A critical bankruptcy litigation issue has finally been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until recently, litigants had been faced with the dilemma of whether to immediately appeal a denial with prejudice of a request for stay relief or wait until the underlying matter had been fully adjudicated. Given the uncertainty, parties remained unsure if they risked losing the ability to challenge the denial of stay relief by a bankruptcy court if they waited to appeal. Now it is clear that they will. In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, 589 U.S.

Introduction

In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.

On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision resolving the question of whether a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy that creates a basis for a final appealable ruling, or whether it simply is a controversy that is part of the broader Chapter 11 case, such that appeals would not need to be taken until the conclusion of the Chapter 11 case.

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.

On January 13, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC., Case No. 16-12700 [Adv. Pro.

In recent weeks, a number of transactions have come across our desks involving levered feeders set up as an investment vehicle for insurance-related investors. For regulatory reasons, these vehicles are established such that each such investor’s commitment is comprised of both a loan commitment (the “Debt Commitment”) and an equity commitment (the “Equity Commitment”). This structure presents a challenge for lenders trying to balance the requested borrowing base treatment for investor commitments of this type against the potential bankruptcy implications that this structure poses.

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

On January 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the class action complaint filed by plaintiff Muhammad M. Butt against FD Holdings, LLC d/b/a Factual Data in the case styled, Butt v. FD Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Factual Data. A copy of the Court’s opinion can be found here.

States across the country have enacted so-called “reviver” statutes allowing otherwise time-barred claims for childhood sexual abuse to proceed. The statutes vary by jurisdiction, but generally do one of three things: (1) eliminate the statute of limitations for such claims; (2) extend the statute of limitations for such claims; or (3) create a window (e.g., a period of a few years) in which otherwise time-barred claims can be filed.