The extent and breadth of changes brought to the United States, and indeed, the world, by COVID-19 will probably not be fully understood for a long time.  There are, however, several legislative changes made in recent days that are likely to have an immediate impact on small businesses.  One that should be important for those advising small businesses in economic crisis are the amendments to The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (H.R.

On March 18, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “District Court”), acting as appellate court for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Bankruptcy Court”), affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision that certain alleged liability of the Debtor, Edward Dudley, Sr., stemming from his role as treasurer for certain charter schools, was dischargeable and not exempt from bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii).  That is the provision which excludes student loans and similar obligations from discharge.

In a decision issued on December 28, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, awarding chapter 11 debtor and creditors’ committee professionals their attorneys’ fees based upon a “carve-out” provision in the cash collateral order and ahead of the secured creditors, despite conversion of the case to chapter 7. East Coast Miner LLC v. Nixon Peabody LLP (In re Licking River Mining, LLC), Case No. 17-6310, 2018 US. App. LEXIS 36677 (6th Cir. 2018).

At first blush, it may seem counterintuitive for financiers to compete to provide loans to debtor companies that have just filed for protection under an insolvency or restructuring procedure, but they have been proven to do so on a large scale in US Chapter 11 cases and for a variety of reasons, whether to protect an existing loan position or taking an opportunity to garner significant, safe returns as a new lender.

In In re KB Toys Inc.,¹ the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the holdings of the lower courts that claims subject to disallowance under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are “similarly disallowable in the hands of the subsequent transferee.” According to the Third Circuit, when a creditor owes property to the estate, until that property is returned to the estate, that creditor’s claim, regardless of who holds it, is impaired, and the subsequent sale of that c

On April 16, 2013, in Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.),¹ the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision informing fundamental concepts of cross-border insolvency law as implemented pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On May 4, 2012, the Delaware bankruptcy court inIn re KB Toys, Inc., et al. (KB Toys), handed down a thoughtful decision addressing the issue of whether impairments attach to a claim or remain with its seller. The KB Toys court held that “a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant. Disabilities attach to and travel with the claim.”

In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.¹ If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently issued an opinion in In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC¹ in which it found, among other things, that the assignment of voting rights from a junior creditor to a senior creditor pursuant to an intercreditor agreement was unenforceable. The opinion was rendered in connection with the court’s decision to confirm the plan proposed by the debtor, the owner of the W Hotel in Boston.

Background

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).