The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.
There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?
One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled 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, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and in 2020 alone, approximately 7,300 companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[1] Of those, forty-two awarded pre-bankruptcy retention bonuses to 223 executives, totaling approximately $165 million.[2] These p
A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirming the decisions of both the bankruptcy and district courts, provides an interesting analysis of “willful” violations of the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. See California Coast Univ. v. Aleckna (In re Aleckna), No. 20-1309 (3d Cir. 2021).
It is said that the word bankruptcy originated in the middle ages from the term “breaking the bench.” At that time, rupturing a craftsman’s bench was the punishment for defaulting. Later, debtors were punished for their failure to pay their debts through imprisonment. Neither approach helped the creditor. Rather, it punished those dependent upon the debtor for support. In the late 19th Century, the American system of bankruptcy was created to break from these policies and provide debtors a fresh start.
Once again, a bankruptcy court has weighed in on the subject of discharging student loan debt in the context of a chapter 7 proceeding.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico added its voice to the split in judicial authority on whether a lien or similar transfer can be avoided under sections 544, 547, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code where only the debtor itself may benefit from the avoidance. Judge Thuma in his recent decision in U.S. Glove, Inc. v. Jacobs (In re U.S. Glove, Inc.), AP No. 21-1009, 2021 WL 2405399 (Bankr. D. N.M.