In a case litigated by the authors, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in In re Marzieh Bastanipour, Case No. 20-1373 (7th Cir. June 10, 2020) that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted in forma pauperis fee waivers absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.

In 2018, the Debtor, Marzieh Bastanipour, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This was the third Chapter 13 petition filed by the Debtor since 2013.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the drastic measures taken in an effort to mitigate its adverse impact have sent shock waves throughout the US and global financial systems. COVID-19 and measures including travel bans, shelter-in-place orders and widespread business closures have caused precipitous changes in customer spending and demand, supply chain disruptions, sharp declines in revenue and other operational challenges across a wide range of economic sectors. Businesses worldwide now confront unprecedented and mounting challenges and distress.

We have previously written about the effects of COVID-19 on the way we currently work, as well as how businesses need to adapt to protect their trade secrets, customer goodwill, and other interests. In ordinary times, emergency injunctive relief is often the first resort for a business after discovering its trade secrets were stolen or customer relationships are at risk.

During challenging economic times, Bankruptcy Courts serve an essential governmental and financial function. The COVID-19 outbreak has forced closures of businesses and governmental entities throughout the country, resulting in a cascade of financial distress across virtually every economic sector. The nation’s courts have not been immune from disruptions. Nearly all State Courts and Federal District Courts in major metropolitan areas have suspended non-emergency civil proceedings.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

On March 2, 2016, Sports Authority, Inc. (“Sports Authority”) and six of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware.  The filing will significantly impact Sports Authority’s landlords and trade creditors.  In a press release, Sports Authority stated that it intends to close or sell approximately 140 locations and two distribution centers in the coming months.  The company is also seeking $595 million in post-bankruptcy financing to continue operations.  Sports Authority is a sporting goods retailer with 463 locations in 41 states and Puerto Rico.

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.