The Bankruptcy Protector

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1 was implemented to protect debtors from unanticipated deficiencies in residential mortgage payments following a chapter 13 discharge, and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s recent opinion in In re Feliciano Figueroa[1] illustrates how detrimental the rule can be to inattentive mortgage holders.

The Bankruptcy Protector

“It’s expensive to be me / Looking this good don’t come for free.” —Erika Jayne, “XXpen$ive”

Real Housewives of Beverly Hills cast member Erika Girardi, more commonly known as Erika Jayne, is the latest example of just how powerful (and expensive) an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding can be.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. eliminated any circuit split or confusion over the language of the section 546(e) safe harbor.

At a time when having groceries delivered to your front door is as easy as a couple of taps and swipes on your phone, it is tempting to rely exclusively on the Internet for solutions to all of our problems. However, convenience and adequacy do not always go hand-in-hand, especially when it comes to legal representation. Such is the case with UpRight Law, LLC, a “national consumer bankruptcy law firm.” UpRight relies heavily on non-lawyer “client consultants” who dispense legal advice to clients and help to farm out the cases to local attorneys.

District Court Confirms Bankruptcy Court’s Constitutional Authority to Approve Millennium Plan Releases, Dismisses as Equitably Moot Opt-Out Lenders' Remaining Issues on Appeal