Should a bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction be subject to appellate review?Taking the negative position, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that it had the “discretion … to decline to hear” an appeal from a bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction. Navient Solutions, LLC et al. v. Homaidan et al., 2022 WL 17252459, *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2022), quoting In re Kassover, 343 F.3d 91, 95 (2d Cir.
In late December, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re: Mallinckrodt PLC affirming the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy court's November 2021 decision that the debtor could discharge certain post-petition, post-confirmation royalty obligations for the sale of the company's Acthar gel.
The district court's affirmation serves as a reminder to holders of intellectual property that a debtor's fresh start under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code could trump royalty obligations that are found to be contingent claims arising as of the time of the transaction.
In a January 5, 2023 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the panel held the Just Energy bankruptcy court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the debtor’s suit to recover Winter Storm Uri payments made to ERCOT. The Fifth Circuit found the underlying issue—i.e., the propriety of ERCOT and PUCT’s pricing—to be precisely the type of controversy that should be decided in the manner carefully prescribed by the Texas legislature, and not be second-guessed by the bankruptcy court.
In late December 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion affirming the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy court’s November 2021 decision that the debtor could discharge certain post-petition, post-confirmation royalty obligations for the sale of Acthar Gel.
The Southern District of New York vacated a bankruptcy court’s judgment holding a debtor’s business competitor (C) “in contempt for violation of the [Bankruptcy Code’s] automatic stay…and assessing sanctions” of $19.2 million. In re Windstream Holdings, Inc., 2022 WL 5245633, *1 (2) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 6, 2022).
“… [B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to “pay what it promised now that it is financially capable.” In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, “given [the debtor’s ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …,” not the “much lower Federal Judgment Rate …,” held the court. Id.
In his final opinion, Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that dividends paid from proceeds of safe-harbored transactions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code are not safe-harbored. While only approximately 15 pages of Judge Drain’s 109-page final opus are dedicated to consideration of the section 546(e) issue, the relevant analysis ends with a pressing question to Congress and an appeal to modify section 546(e) to “restrict to public transactions its currently overly broad free pass . . .
The “connections” of the chairman (“W”) of the debtor’s investment bank (“S”) to his family’s foundations do “not give rise to an actual, active conflict of any kind,” held a bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York on Oct. 17, 2022. In re SAS A.B., 2022 WL 10189110, *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2022). According to the court, it “is only through strained speculation [by the U.S. Trustee] that a potential issue can even be posited.” Accord, In re Harold & Williams Dev. Co., 977 F.2d 906 (4th Cir.
“…[B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to “pay what it promised now that it is financially capable.” In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, “given [the debtor’s ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …,” not the “much lower Federal Judgment Rate . . .,” held the court. Id.
The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had “complied with” American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who “moved from” the defendant’s law firm “to the [plaintiff’s] firm” was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified.