Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., No. 16-784 (2018)
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649 (2017)
In early November, the Ninth Circuit held in In re New Investments, Inc. that a debtor was required to “cure” defaults to an agreement using a post-default interest rate, overturning its prior, decades-old decision In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc., which had held that a debtor could cure agreements at pre-default interest rates.
Background
Creditors seeking to file an involuntary petition against a debtor may want to consider doing their due diligence before using it as a tool in their ongoing disputes with a debtor.
Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, No. 14-103 (previously described in the October 2, 2014, Docket Report)
Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (previously described in the July 1, 2014, Docket Report)
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14–116 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)
On June 9, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (“Executive Benefits”)1 that resolved a fundamental bankruptcy procedural issue that had arisen in the wake of Stern v.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a secured creditor cannot be denied its right to “credit bid”—i.e., to offset the amount of its debt against the purchase price of assets, rather than bidding in cash—in sales of collateral undertaken in connection with plans of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In so ruling, the Court resolved a widely publicized split of authority among the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and rejected the Third Circuit’s ruling in the Philadelphia Newspapers case.1