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.

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

Claims disputes are “core proceedings” in bankruptcy cases that are subject to the general jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, subject to exceptions for personal injury tort or wrongful death claims. Under 28 U.S.C.

Postpetition interest is a thorny area of bankruptcy law.  The myriad rules, coupled with the inconsistent way in which they are often applied, provide fodder for litigation and opportunity for confusion.  

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.

This is the fourth and final post in our series on Judge Sontchi’s postpetition interest decision in Energy Future Holdings, issued on October 30, 2015.  Our first post in this series analyzed Judge Sontchi’s ruling that postpetition interest on an unsecured claim does not constitute a part of the unsecured claim itself.  Our 

This is the third post in our series on Judge Sontchi’s postpetition interest decision in Energy Futures Holdings, issued on October 30, 2015. Our first post in this series analyzed Judge Sontchi’s ruling that postpetition interest on an unsecured claim does not constitute a part of the unsecured claim itself.

This is the second post in our series on 

The law governing postpetition interest in bankruptcy remains unsettled despite having been subjected to more than 100 years of debate in the federal courts. On October 30, 2015, 

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background