Appeals from bankruptcy court orders continue to play a key role in bankruptcy practice. The relevant sections of the Judicial Code and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules arguably cover all the relevant issues in a straightforward manner. Recent cases, however, show that neither Congress nor the Rules Committees could ever address the myriad issues raised by imaginative lawyers. The appellate courts continue to wrestle with standing, jurisdiction, mootness, excusable neglect, and finality, among other things.

A “federal [fraudulent transfer claim under Bankruptcy Code § 548] is independent of [a] state-court [foreclosure] judgment,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Dec. 27, 2021. In reLowry, 2021 WL 6112972, *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021). Reversing the lower courts’ approval of a Michigan tax foreclosure sale, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “the amount paid on foreclosure bore no relation at all to the value of the property, thus precluding the … argument that the sale was for ‘a reasonably equivalent value’ under the rule of BFP v.

A Chapter 11 corporate debtor’s monetary penalty obligation owed to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), resulting from “fraud on consumers,” survived the debtor’s reorganization plan discharge, even when the FCC “was not a victim of the fraud,” held the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2021. In re Fusion Connect Inc., 2021 WL 3932346, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2021).

“[L]ack of good faith in a SIPA [Securities Investor Protection Act] liquidation applies an inquiry notice, not willful blindness, standard, and that a SIPA trustee does not bear the burden of pleading the transferee’s lack of good faith,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2021. In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 2021 WL 3854761, 91 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021) (“Madoff”).

The author examines a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that involved whether a contract was, or was not, an executory contract.

“[B]ankruptcy inevitably creates harsh results for some players,” explained the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 21, 2021, when it denied a film producer’s claim for contractual cure payments in In re Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC. 1

"`Staggering' legal fees in Boy Scouts Bankruptcy Case." So read the title of an article in The New York Times on May 11, 2021. According to the reporter, a "lawyer negotiating a resolution to the multi-billion dollar bankruptcy filed by the Boy Scouts of America billed $267,435 in a single month. Another charged $1,725 for each hour of work. New lawyers fresh out of law school have been billing at an hourly rate of more than $600." The bankruptcy judge presiding over the case has called the fee totals "staggering," said the reporter.

“[B]ankruptcy inevitably creates harsh results for some players,” explained the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 21, 2021, when it denied a film producer’s claim for contractual cure payments. In re Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 2023058, *9 (3d Cir. May 21, 2021).

2021年5月14日，最高人民法院与香港特区政府签署了《最高人民法院和香港特别行政区政府关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和协助破产程序的会谈纪要》（以下简称“《会谈纪要》”），为进一步细化两地破产案件协助机制，最高人民法院发布了《关于开展认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点工作的意见》（以下简称“《试点意见》”），在破产程序的互相认可、互认的案件范围、互认的法律效力、两地司法机构的协助方式等方面为涉及两地的破产工作提供了创新性指引。我们从《试点意见》的诞生背景入手，分析此次《试点意见》的创新亮点，作为在内地和香港特别行政区均专业从事债务重组业务的律师事务所，展望两地破产协助的前景。

一、《试点意见》的诞生背景

在《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》的效力前提下，香港特区可以与全国其他地区的司法机关以协商方式进行司法协助。在法院判决及仲裁裁决的互认与执行等方面，内地与香港地区已签署八项民商事司法协助安排，但此前两地的司法协助将破产领域除外。《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第五条对跨境破产作出原则性规定，尚无制度性的司法文件。此番《试点意见》的出台，是对两地司法协助在破产领域的拓展性探索，对于破产从业人员参与跨境程序、保全企业资产、参与衍生诉讼与仲裁、境外债权人参与破产程序而言，《试点意见》无疑具有开创性意义。

The debtors' legal malpractice claim was "not property of their bankruptcy estate," held a split Ninth Circuit on June 30, 2020. In re Glaser, 816 Fed. Appx. 103, 104 (9th Cir. June 30, 2020) (2-1). But the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota one week later affirmed a bankruptcy court judgment that "the [debtor's] estate was the proper owner" of such a claim. In re Bruess, 2020 WL3642324, 1 (D. Minn. July 6, 2020).

A secured lender's "mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy repossession] does not violate" the automatic stay provision [362(a) (3)] of the Bankruptcy Code, held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, 4 ( Jan. 14, 2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit's affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved "a split" in the Circuits. Id. at 2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.