Creditors should take note that the deadline for filing a proof of claim has changed in bankruptcy cases filed under chapter 7, chapter 12 or chapter 13. As of December 1, 2017, a proof of claim ordinarily must be filed not later than 70 days after the bankruptcy case is filed if the case is voluntarily filed under one of these chapters. The change in deadlines is one of many recent changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

“[B]ankruptcy does not constitute a per se breach of contract and does not excuse performance by the other party in the absence of some further indication that the [debtor] either cannot, or does not, intend to perform,” held the Supreme Court of Connecticut in a lengthy opinion on Nov. 21, 2017. CCT Communications, Inc. v. Zone Telecom, Inc., 2017 WL 5477540, *13 (Ct. Nov. 21, 2017) (en banc), superseding 324 Conn. 654, 153 A.3d 1249 (2017). Reversing the trial court, granting the plaintiff’s motion for en banc reconsideration of its earlier Feb.

Non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) are often vulnerable to importer/exporter debtors when they declare bankruptcy. As brick and mortar retailers continue to face dwindling market share due to the dramatic rise in online shopping – $1.25 billion per day in online consumer purchases in the U.S., and doubling every five years – risks to NVOCCs rise.

In April 2017, the Supreme Court submitted to Congress proposed revisions to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”), Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), and Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”). The proposed revisions will go into effect on December 1, 2017, unless Congress rejects or defers the proposed amendments.

In order to secure a real property owner’s payment obligation, contractors, mechanics, materialmen, and other workmen are often granted a lien referred to by a variety of names including, materialmen’s liens, workmen’s liens, and mechanic’s liens. While the parlance varies by jurisdiction, they are generally referred to as mechanic’s liens in Texas—even in the context of real property.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan recently issued an opinion in a bankruptcy case involving a husband and wife who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

In Clark’s Crystal Springs Ranch, LLC v. Gugino (In re Clark), 692 Fed. Appx. 946, 2017 BL 240043 (9th Cir. July 12, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that: (i) the remedy of "substantive consolidation" is governed by federal bankruptcy law, not state law; and (ii) because the Bankruptcy Code does not expressly forbid the substantive consolidation of debtors and nondebtors, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), does not bar bankruptcy courts from ordering the remedy.

In In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2017 BL 335015 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2017), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that certain private-placement noteholders were entitled to receive a "make-whole" premium in excess of $200 million under a chapter 11 plan that rendered the noteholders’ claims unimpaired.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in its recent decision in Town Center Flats, LLC v. ECP Commercial II LLC (In re Town Center Flats LLC), Case No. 16-1812 (6th Cir. May 2, 2017), reinforces an option that commercial lenders in certain states have as a defensive strategy in anticipation of a single-asset real estate bankruptcy involving a defaulted multi-family or hotel loans. The decision is dependent on state law regarding the effect of an absolute assignment of rents and the exercise of the lender’s rights under such an assignment clause.

In In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 2017 BL 354864 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 3, 2017), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that it had the constitutional authority to grant nonconsensual third-party releases in an order confirming the chapter 11 plan of laboratory testing company Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC ("Millennium"). In so ruling, the court rejected an argument made by a group of creditors that a provision in Millennium’s plan releasing racketeering claims against the debtor’s former shareholders was prohibited by the U.S.