In Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1956 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that bankruptcy debtors were required by due process to provide more prominent notice of a case filing than they did, such that the notice might have been seen by unknown creditors with claims to assert.

Bankruptcy courts lack the power to impose serious punitive sanctions, a federal district judge ruled recently in PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Sensenich, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207801 (D. Vt. Dec. 18, 2018). Judge Geoffrey Crawford reversed a bankruptcy judge’s ruling that had imposed sanctions against a creditor based on Rule 3002.1(i) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority, and Bankruptcy Code section 105.

On November 9, responding to a request from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Solicitor General filed a brief at the Court recommending that the petition for writ of certiorari in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-11911, be granted. The petition, seeking review of a unanimous panel decision of the Eleventh Circuit, presents the question of “whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a ‘statement respecting the debtor's . . .

On 5 May 2017, a day after the recent Banking Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 (Ordinance) received Presidential assent, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a circular on ‘Timelines for Stressed Assets Resolution’ (Circular). The Circular amends the existing “Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy – Guidelines on JLF and CAP” dated 26 February 2014 (JLF Framework) and mandates members of a joint lenders forum (JLF) to follow strict timelines in implementing the corrective action plan (CAP) or suffer penal consequences for non-compliance.