Historically, the interests of landlords whose commercial real estate is occupied by debtors in Chapter 11 proceedings have been generally well protected. Indeed, Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the debtor to timely perform all of its post-petition obligations under its nonresidential leases of real property — most important among those, rent.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.

In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.

General Legal Background

The Bottom Line

We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.

Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.

In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.

The Bottom Line

In CMH Liquidating Trust v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. 16-cv-14434 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (“CMH”), the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that an insurance policy that was renewed post-petition was still an executory contract, and thus, a provision denying coverage for acts leading to bankruptcy was a prohibited ipso facto clause.

What Happened?

The Bottom Line

In In re PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk, Ch. 11 Case No. 18-10200 (SHL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied a noteholder group’s request for summary judgment seeking denial of recognition of a foreign proceeding under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code because the debtor had sufficient property in the United States, the appointment of the foreign representative was effective and the Indonesian proceeding was a collective one.

What Happened?