The Supreme Court’s decision last term in Baker Botts v. Asarco, in which the Court ruled that professionals that are paid from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate cannot be compensated for time spent defending their fee applications, continues to rankle bankruptcy practitioners.  Moreover, a recent decision in a Delaware bankruptcy case shows that the impact of Asarco will not be easily circumvented.

Bankruptcy and restructuring professionals usually do not need to be political junkies. Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, and the accompanying machinations of the Congressional legislative process, typically occur at a glacial pace, and such changes nearly always affect future rather than current chapter 11 cases.  However, the 

On November 30, 2015, the City of Detroit began filing complaints against vendors and service providers seeking to avoid and recover potentially “preferential payments” made by the City of Detroit during the 90 days preceding entry of the Order for Relief in its Chapter 9 bankruptcy case.  The Order for Relief was entered on December 5, 2013, and the City must file its claims by December 5, 2015.

At a hearing in late August, Judge Robert Gerber expressed his annoyance with both sides in the ongoing battle to determine whether General Motors LLC (“New GM”), the entity formed in 2009 to acquire the assets of General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), is shielded from lawsuits based on ignition switch defects in cars manufactured prior to New GM’s acquisition of the assets of Old GM in 2009.

Energy Future Holdings (“EFH” or “Debtors”) has cleared all of the preliminary hurdles in its path as it moves towards the confirmation of its plan of reorganization (the “Plan”).

Mediation has become an invaluable tool in large chapter 11 cases.

For the second time in the past few months, Judge Christopher Sontchi has dashed the hopes of certain creditors in the Energy Future Holdings (“EFH”) chapter 11 case that they would be paid a make-whole premium worth over $400 million.

The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v.

Amended rules governing the issuance, service, and enforcement of periodic garnishments will go into effect on Oct. 1, 2015. The amendments will, among other changes, provide much needed protection to garnishees from the imposition of a default or default judgment resulting from administrative or ministerial errors and will also streamline the periodic garnishment process.

Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled. Stern significantly reduced the authority of bankruptcy courts, and bankruptcy judges and practitioners both have since been grappling with the ramifications of that decision.