The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___, No. 16-348, draws attention in passing to a peculiar feature of Wisconsin law on the effect of statutes of limitations.

The Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy trustee to compel return of a payment made to a creditor within 90 days before a bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(4)(A). The justification for compelling the return of preference payments is to level the playing field among creditors by not rewarding those who, perhaps, pressed the debtor the hardest on the eve of bankruptcy.

As we explained in a post yesterday, the Seventh Circuit in In re Bronk (Cirilli v.

In re Bronk (Cirilli v. Bronk), No. 13-1123 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2015), resolved a couple of “questions of first impression,” slip op.

On April 29, 2014, power giant Energy Future Holding Corp. (“Energy Future”), along with 70 subsidiaries, filed for chapter 11 protection in the District of Delaware as part of a deal it has reached through lengthy negotiations with some of its largest senior creditors to restructure roughly $50 billion in debt.

The power of an appellate court in the federal system to stay the orders of lower courts or to enjoin conduct that lower courts have refused to enjoin, so as to preserve the appellate court’s jurisdiction to review those orders on ultimate appeal, is clearly established yet infrequently invoked. In addition to other potential sources, the power derives from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.

In an opinion with serious implications for the treatment of overriding royalty interests ("ORRIs"), a Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court ruled that under Louisiana law, an ORRI could be recharacterized as debt rather than a royalty interest, even if the conveyance was facially consistent with an ORRI. An ORRI that is treated as debt would likely have a much lower priority for payment in bankruptcy than an ORRI treated as a royalty interest.