The Bankruptcy Protector

The filing of a bankruptcy petition under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code creates the ‘automatic stay,’ which prevents creditors from taking any further action against either the debtor or the debtor’s assets during the bankruptcy. Seasoned bankruptcy attorneys know that a violation of the automatic stay is a serious matter and, because of this, appropriately advise their clients on complying with, or enforcing, the stay. However, stay violations can inadvertently occur even when all reasonable and necessary precautions are taken.

The Bankruptcy Protector

At the very end of a recent opinion, the First Circuit seemingly provided guidance on how bondholders can attack the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s debt restricting act, PROMESA (The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act). However, the apparent guidance offered by the First Circuit may only be fool’s gold.

A dispute over whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) can order one of Northern California’s largest natural gas and electric companies – Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) – to reject wholesale power purchase contracts (“PPCs”) will be decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”), instead of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”).

Bankruptcy Judges cannot impose additional local chapter 13 confirmation requirements beyond those created by Congress, according to the Southern District of Illinois (the “District Court”).

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) often plays an active role in larger, more complex business bankruptcy cases. But what right, if any, does a UCC have to intervene in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding? The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this very issue in Assured Guaranty Corp., et al. v. The Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico, et. al., 17-1831 (1st Cir. Sept. 22, 2017) (“Financial Oversight”) and ultimately held that a UCC does have such a right.

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.

Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

The Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited Judgment in the case of Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis, confirming that businesses which are in administration are not exempted from TUPE.