Before ingesting too much holiday cheer, we encourage you to consider a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Weil Bankruptcy Blog connoisseurs will recall that, in May 2019, we wrote on the Southern District of New York’s decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.) (“Tribune I”).

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.), has re-examined application of the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532, to the transferees of “financial institutions” in so-called “conduit transactions,” following the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883 (2018).

Introduction

In re Katy Indus., Inc., 590 B.R. 628 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018) presented an interesting question: If a stalking horse bidder’s successful bid to purchase a company in chapter 11 was partially predicated upon a credit bid, and a portion of that credit bid was challenged after the sale closed, what would be the result for the bidder’s overall successful bid if that portion of the credit bid was eliminated?

Background

The mergers and acquisitions surge witnessed at the end of 2013 continued through 2014 and drove overall global mergers and acquisitions activity to 2007 pre-recession levels.

The Michigan judge overseeing Detroit’s historic bankruptcy case found today that parties seeking to appeal his order finding the city eligible for bankruptcy protection may proceed directly to the Sixth Circuit.

Is anyone ready for a test on bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction?  For the second time in a week, the Sixth Circuit addressed its appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy appeals, this time in the context of orders denying the substantive consolidation of two separate chapter 7 bankruptcy estates, In re Cyberco Holdings and Teleservices Group.   On the heels of its decision in Lindsey v.

The Sixth Circuit addressed on Monday a circuit split concerning appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy court orders rejecting planned confirmation in In re William Lindsey.   In an opinion by Judge Sutton, the Sixth Circuit joined four other circuits which had concluded that a decision rejecting a confirmation plan does not constitute a final appealable order under Section 158(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Court noted that an unpublished decision in t

In Waldman v.

In Auday v. Wet Sale Retail, Inc., the Sixth Circuit considered an action by a former individual debtor who sued for an age discrimination claim. The district court barred the plaintiff from litigating the claim because she failed to identify it as an asset in the bankruptcy court, and the claim had arisen by that point in time.

The FDIC has recently appealed a loss it suffered at trial on the question of whether the debtor in bankruptcy (the holding company of a failed bank) made a “commitment” to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank under Section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code.  After a week-long bench trial with an advisory jury, the Northern District of Ohio rejected the FDIC’s claim that a commitment had been made by the holding company to the Office of Thrift Supervision.  The F