On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

A defendant creditor in a preference suit may offset (a) the amount of later “new value” (i.e., additional goods) it gave the Chapter 11 debtor against (b) the debtor’s earlier preferential payment to the creditor, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 14, 2018. In re BFW Liquidation LLC, 2018 WL 3850101 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018). Even when the creditor was paid for the new goods, stressed the court, Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “§ 547(c)(4) does not require new value to remain unpaid.” Id., at *5.

A bankruptcy court properly dismissed a creditor’s involuntary bankruptcy petition “for cause” when it “would serve none of the Bankruptcy Code’s goals or purposes . . . and [when] the sole [petitioning] creditor is not substantially prejudiced by remedies available under state law,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 14, 2018. In re Murray, 2018 WL 3848316, *7 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2018). In its view, the bankruptcy court “declined to serve as a ‘rented battle field’ or ‘collection agency’” for a single creditor. Id., at *7.

A purported conditional sale agreement “created a security interest rather than a lease,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Aug. 7, 2018. In re Pioneer Health Services Inc., 2018 WL 3747537, *3 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018). Affirming the lower courts’ finding “that the relevant agreements were not ‘true leases,’” the court rejected a bank’s “motion to compel payment under [its] contract as an unexpired lease or an administrative expense.” Id., at *1. The economic substance, not the form of the transaction, was decisive.

On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.

When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).

The appellate courts are usually the last stop for parties in business bankruptcy cases. The courts issued at least three provocative, if not questionable, decisions in the past six months. Their decisions have not only created uncertainty, but will also generate further litigation over reorganization plan manipulation, arbitration of routine bankruptcy disputes and the treatment of trademark licenses in reorganization cases. Each decision apparently disposes of routine issues in business cases. A closer look at each case, though, reveals the sad truth: they are anything but routine.

“ . . . [A] bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a [reorganization] plan . . . and/or