The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its latest bankruptcy opinion in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s rule against invalidating 363 sales after appeal is not an iron-clad jurisdictional bar, but rather a mere statutory limitation.[1]

Delaware Judge Brendan Shannon has joined calls for reforming Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code, echoing concerns that the section’s safe harbor from fraudulent transfer liability has allowed investors to “loot privately held companies to the detriment of their non-insider creditors with effective impunity.”[1]

Cryptocurrency in Celsius’ Earn Accounts belongs to the bankruptcy estate, and not to the depositors who placed it there, according to a January 4 memorandum opinion from Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

Recent rulings out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and its lower bankruptcy courts have emphasized the circuit’s broad interpretation of section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects bankruptcy sales from being overturned on appeal.

In her September 23 opinion in In re Royal Street Bistro, LLC, et al., No. 21-2285, District Judge Sarah S. Vance provided a comprehensive summary of the Fifth Circuit case law while mooting a debtor’s attempt to appeal a sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On March 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) revisited the issue of the rejection of filed-rate contracts in bankruptcy where such contracts are governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The ruling marks the first time the Fifth Circuit has addressed this issue since its 2004 decision in In re Mirant Corp.¹ In Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v.

A recent order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) allowed a debtor to reopen a completed auction based on a significantly more attractive, but untimely, bid. The late bid was approximately three times the cash consideration of the previously declared winning bid, and also provided for the additional containment of potential environmental risks. The decision is being appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “District Court”).

Judge Craig Whitley’s recent transfer of the LTL Management case will bring a high-profile "Texas Two-Step" chapter 11 bankruptcy to New Jersey, and it may open a new chapter in how courts approach the novel transaction designed to isolate and address certain mass-tort liabilities.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).