Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

On August 4, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. (In re AE Liquidation, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14359 (3d Cir.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

In Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Hildebrand, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals explains how to read the phrase “applicable nonbankruptcy law” as it is used in the United States Bankruptcy Code. The case – a chapter 13 individual bankruptcy case – discussed the phrase in the context of section 511(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which deals with the appropriate rate of interest applicable to tax claims.

In Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Hildebrand, the Sixth Circuit explains how to read the phrase “applicable nonbankruptcy law” as used in the Bankruptcy Code. The chapter 13 individual bankruptcy case discussed the phrase in the context of 11 U.S.C. § 511(a), which provides that the appropriate interest rate for tax claims is whatever “applicable nonbankruptcy law” provides.

The decision

On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.

Among other strategic considerations a financially troubled company must grapple with as it prepares for a potential bankruptcy filing is how best to effectively implement necessary workforce reductions as part of its overall reorganization efforts. A workforce reduction could potentially give rise to severance and other employee obligations, and, under certain circumstances, could also give rise to significant WARN Act claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

In bankruptcy cases, things often move more slowly than people would like or expect.  In addition to dealing with oversight by the bankruptcy court and the United States Trustee, a debtor typically spends significant time engaging with its lenders and secured creditors, committees of unsecured creditors, and any number of other key stakeholders.  Court approval is needed for most significant events in the case, for anything out of the ordinary course of business, and, at times, even for small matters.  Transparency, adequate notice and opportunity to object, and due process a

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.