The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to use "cash collateral" during the course of a bankruptcy case may be vital to the debtor's prospects for a successful reorganization. However, because of the unique nature of cash collateral, the Bankruptcy Code sets forth special rules that apply to the nonconsensual use of such collateral to protect the interests of the secured creditor involved. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington examined these requirements in In re Claar Cellars, LLC, 2020 WL 1238924 (Bankr. E.D.

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down three rulings potentially impacting bankruptcy cases.

Nunc Pro TuncRelief

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, No. 18-921, 2020 WL 871715 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2020), the Court circumscribed the use of nunc pro tunc ("now for then") orders that make relief ordered by a court apply retroactively to an earlier point in time.

In In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883, 200 L. Ed. 2d 183 (2018), its 2016 decision that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodities, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On July 16, 2014, the Uniform Law Commission (the "Commission") approved a series of amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the "UFTA"), which at that time was in force in 43 states (all states except Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia).

In This Issue:

U.S. Supreme Court: Creditors May Immediately Appeal Denials of Automatic-Stay Relief

Dans l’affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies relative à Nemaska Lithium, la Cour supérieure du Québec rend une décision intéressante en ce qui concerne la possibilité pour une débitrice de résilier des contrats auxquels elle est partie et sur son obligation, le cas échéant, de payer à son cocontractant les frais qu’il doit encourir pour reprendre possession de biens loués.

In the matter of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act of Nemaska Lithium, the Québec Superior Court rendered an interesting decision regarding the possibility for a debtor to disclaim agreements and its obligation, if any, to pay its counterparty the costs it must incur to repossess leased property.

Background: Nemaska Lithium disclaims a housing modules rental agreement

In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.

In the July/August 2019 issue of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed a landmark decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 913 F.3d 533(5th Cir. 2019) ("Ultra I").