On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).

In a May 4, 2015 opinion¹ , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.

The courts continue to pick away at the “unfinished business rule.” The latest blow came earlier this month when a U.S. district court dismissed a Chapter 7 trustee’s claims against eight law firms who provided services to former clients of Howrey LLP. We are getting close to the point where the unfinished business rule may in fact be finished.

How far do the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions extend in the commercial mortgage-backed securitization (CMBS) market? Do these safe harbor provisions protect financial institutions that act merely as conduits for CMBS payments? These questions were addressed recently by the Northern District of Illinois District Court, and the court’s decision provides ammunition for CMBS investors in clawback claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

As we previewed last week, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently handed General Motors (“New GM”) an enormous victory that may end up shielding the company from up to $10 billion in successor liability claims.

The bankruptcy court yesterday handed General Motors (New GM) an enormous victory that may end up shielding the company from up to $10 billion in potential legal liabilities. In his 138-page ruling, Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber held that a 2009 bankruptcy order allowing the sale of the assets of “old” General Motors (Old GM) to New GM shielded New GM from death and injury claims tied to defective ignition switches in older cars.

Filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition is an alternative not often considered by creditors. However, faced with the possibility of having to write-off a claim, a creditor may choose to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition in order to put the debtor under the control of the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy court. Such a move comes with risk, and a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision may expand that risk.

Events are happening quickly these days with Caesars Entertainment.  On January 13, holders of second lien notes issued by Caesars Entertainment Operating Company (“CEOC”) filed an involuntary chapter 11 petition against CEOC in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Two days later, CEOC itself filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, setting up a venue fight over the bankruptcy case.  And later that same day, the U.S.