The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the hugely anticipated litigation involving the Game group of companies, deciding that, where a company goes into administration and continues to trade from property, rent will be payable on a daily basis for the period during which the company actually occupies the premises.

Although only a few weeks old, 2013 has already seen HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster enter administration, joining last year's failures, which included Comet, Clinton Cards and Peacocks.  Given the number of premises these companies occupy across the UK, landlords of retail premises will inevitably be affected.

The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.