The first Monday of each October marks the beginning of a fresh term for the Supreme Court of the United States. As the 2016 term approaches, the court’s docket has already begun to fill with cases that will impact commercial practitioners. While the court will continue to accept additional cases throughout the upcoming term, it has already agreed to hear at least five cases that may have significant implications for commercial lawyers throughout the country.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently recommended that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) grant summary judgment in favor of shippers where the carrier discontinued the services for which the shippers had agreed to minimum quantity commitments (“MQC”) in exchange for reduced freight rates in a shipping service contract.

Bankruptcy Court Rules in Favor of University in Trustee's Suit to Recover Tuition Payments, Then Certifies Trustee's Appeal to First Circuit

HIGHLIGHTS:

Relying on the principle of international comity embodied in Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently vacated Rule B attachments previously granted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Louisiana District Court”) on the vessel M/V DAEBO TRADER (the “Vessel”) in In re DAEBO Int

As the Supreme Court recently reminded us in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, not all orders in bankruptcy cases are immediately appealable as a matter of right. Only those orders deemed sufficiently “final” may be appealed without leave under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

(W.D. Ky. Aug. 15, 2016)

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing whether a conflict of interest exists when a trustee under a deed of trust initiates a foreclosure proceeding and later represents the lender in that same foreclosure proceeding.

On June 28, 2016, Judge Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America National Association, et al.(Adv. Proc. No. 10-03547 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

The Third Circuit recently affirmed that a debtor in Chapter 11 can use a tender offer to settle claims without running afoul of the Bankruptcy Code. Although In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.is limited to its particular facts and circumstances, the decision could lead to increased use of tender offers prior to confirmation of a bankruptcy plan.

Several recent cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have created ambiguity about when distressed exchange offers violate Section 316(b) of the 1939 Trust Indenture Act (the “TIA”). It appears that plaintiffs’ lawyers are using this ambiguity to challenge distressed exchange offers. The threat of litigation may give minority bondholders a powerful tool to hinder less than fully consensual out-of-court restructurings and provide them with increased leverage in negotiations.