Last week, in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (May 26, 2015), the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court can enter final judgment on “non-core” claims under 28 U.S.C. § 157 if the parties consent to that court’s jurisdiction.  It overturned a decision by the Seventh Circuit that relied heavily on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Waldman v.

As we expected might happen in light of the Court’s previous order, the parties in the Detroit bankruptcy appeal agreed to postpone oral argument.  In a letter to the parties, however, Judge Gibbons wrote that the appeals should be resolved before near the beginning of the hearing on the confirmation

Last Friday, the Sixth Circuit postponed oral argument in some of the pending cases in the appeal from the bankruptcy judge’s decision that Detroit was entitled to creditor protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and could try to alter the terms of workers’ pensions. The postponement was apparently granted to allow various pension groups to settle with the city.

In December, the Sixth Circuit, in Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. v. Still (In re McKenzie), 737 F.3d 1034 (6th Cir. 2013), addressed two matters of first impression when it adopted the majority rules that (i) a creditor who seeks relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay has the burden to prove the validity of its perfected security interest in collateral; and (ii) the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations on bankruptcy avoidance actions does not prevent the trustee from asserting them defensively under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A Michigan bankruptcy judge ruled yesterday that Detroit is eligible for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, overruling numerous objections filed by labor unions, pension funds and other interested parties.  Almost immediately following the ruling, a notice of appeal was filed by Counsel 25 of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”).

In FDIC v. AmTrustFinancial Corporation, the Sixth Circuit considered the results of the very first trial in the nation under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(o). Section 365(o) is an infrequently litigated provision of the Bankruptcy Code that requires a party seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to fulfill “any commitment . . .

The Sixth Circuit is one of only five federal appellate courts to institute a bankruptcy appellate panel under 28 U.S.C. § 158(b).  (The others are the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth circuits.) As the bankruptcy appellate panel is unfamiliar to many non-bankruptcy attorneys, this post will review the Sixth Circuit’s bankruptcy appellate panel. 

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.

In a 113-page decision (click here to read decision) that is sure to be applauded by lenders and bond traders alike, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in overturning a Bankruptcy Court opinion that has caused lenders much concern, has issued a stern ruling that provides a bulwark against efforts by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy to expand the scope of the fraudulent conveyance provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.